Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

DURHAM MARKETS COMPANY BILL [Lords]

LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]

PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

SAINT MARY, ALVERSTOKE, BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the transfer of Covent Garden Market to a site in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to enable the Treasury to fulfil guarantees given by them with respect to the redemption of, or the payment of interest on, Covent Garden Market Stock or Covent Garden Market debentures; and
(b) any increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums which under section 40 of the Covent Garden Market Act, 1961—

(i) may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund to enable the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make advances to the Covent Garden Market Authority;
(ii) may be raised under the National Loans Act 1939;
(iii) are required to be paid into the Exchequer and subsequently issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in

redeeming or paying off debt or meeting such part of the annual charges for the national debt as represents interest.—[Mr. Niall MacDermot.]

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL

Adjourned debate on Question [29th April], That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 4 of the Bill, further adjourned till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Valuation Appeals, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many of the 2,500 proposals for reduction in the rateable assessment of properties in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which were still awaiting a hearing on 19th January, 1965, have yet to be dealt with by the Valuation Panel;

(2) whether he will institute an inquiry into the rating valuation procedure and work of the Inland Revenue valuation staff in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in the light of the information submitted to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): There were about 2,000 proposals for reduction awaiting hearing. I am looking into the information sent by my hon. Friend and will write to him.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many ratepayers in Newcastle-upon-Tyne consider that the valuation officer has been indulging in delaying tactics as regards their appeals and that they are being actively dissuaded from appealing against their assessments? Will he carefully examine the evidence I have given to him and the further evidence which is on the way which shows that my constituents consider that the dice has been loaded against them?

Mr. MacDermot: I shall certainly look into all the matters which my hon. Friend


has referred to me. I must point out, however, that it is not an uncommon allegation made against valuation officers that they have brought pressure to bear on people to settle their cases when, in fact, they have made perfectly normal and proper attempts to negotiate a settlement. It is obviously desirable that as many cases as possible should be settled by negotiation rather than that all the time, trouble and expense of court hearings should be involved.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Is the Financial Secretary aware that many people in Newcastle who are, quite understandably, hoping for a reduction in their assessments are principally concerned about the high cost of local Labour government and are wondering what has happened to Labour's election proposal to move a higher percentage of expenditure from the local authorities to the Exchequer?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise and is out of order.

Import Surcharge

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the economic situation now allows him to help the man-made fibre industry and in particular those firms manufacturing in Ulster by removing the 10 per cent. impost from acrylonitrile (Chapter 29), niax polyol (within 39·19) and polyadipate esters (within 39·01), being material of the description specified in Schedule 2 to the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1965.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the economic situation now allows him to help the man-made fibre industry and in particular those firms manufacturing in Ulster, by removing the 10 per cent. impost from 1:6 hexolactam (within 29·35) and nylon 6 polymer (within 39·01), being material of the description specified in Schedule 2 to the Imports Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 2) Order, 1965.

Mr. MacDermot: The charge on these materials was reduced from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. as recently as 27th April. Further reductions will depend on the progress of our economy.

Sir Knox Cunningham: When a further reduction is being considered, will

the Financial Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to remove it completely from these materials as the man-made fibre industry is severely hit by so much of its raw material being caught by this tax?

Mr. MacDermot: We shall bear the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion in mind, but he will remember from our debates on the Finance Bill the difficulties we found in making exceptions for particular materials. It was for these reasons that we thought it better to make a general across-the-board reduction.

Mr. Heath: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also remember that in those debates many undertakings were given by Ministers that special consideration would be given to these items and to one or two others which were mentioned, and the impression was given that it would not be just a question of a general reduction but they might be the subject of particular reductions? Will he, therefore, look at these items again?

Mr. MacDermot: Certainly. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we did say in respect of certain items that we would give particular attention to the possibility of reductions on them as separate items. We did not find that possible last time. I cannot anticipate what would be the way in which we might make any further reductions.

Mr. Channon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to make the next reduction of the import surcharge.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I have nothing to add to my Budget statement.

Mr. Channon: Will the Chancellor ensure that, when such an announcement is made in the future, it is done in a less inept way so as to avoid the build-up of imports that occurred as a result of giving long advance notice on the past occasion, and will he also remember what damage this is causing to our European allies and try to remove the surcharge as soon as possible?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in the first part of what he said. He is certainly inaccurate in the second.

Mr. William Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, as reported in HANSARD of 11th November, at c. 1028, he estimated that £300 million would be saved by the imposition of the surcharge? If that was a realistic estimate, will he now admit that the import surcharge is not having the desired effect as, for the first five months of its imposition, there should have been a reduction of £125 million but, in fact, imports in those five months went up by over £40 million?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir; one cannot produce a straightforward arithmetical equation based on the first few months out of the 12. It is bound to build up over a period, and it is doing so.

Sir C. Osborne: The Chancellor has just heard his hon. and learned Friend say that a further reduction will depend upon the state of our economy. Will he tell the House exactly what he expects to see in the economy before a further reduction takes place?

Mr. Callaghan: I expect to see us well on the way towards balancing our payments in 1965 and completing the process in 1966.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations have been made to him about the effect of the surcharge on the cost of life-saving drugs not manufactured in this country; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the effect of the surcharge on the cost of life-saving drugs not manufactured in this country; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. MacDermot: No such representations have been made since my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary answered similar Questions on 2nd March.

Mr. Hall: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a surcharge imposed to discourage imports should not be imposed on the importation of life-saving drugs? In view of the anxiety expressed by the Government about the effects of smoking on health, is it not rather illogical to impose a surcharge on drugs and yet exempt imported cigarettes from such a surcharge?

Mr. MacDermot: As I explained on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, if we had been able to make an exception confined to these drugs we should have been very glad to do so. Unfortunately, we could not do so without exempting a great many other imported chemicals many of which are used extensively in other industries. This, again, is a case on which, for the time being at least, all that we have felt able to do is to enable these items to benefit from the general reduction of 5 per cent.

Mr. Jackson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the drug manufacturers in this country made smaller profits and spent less money on advertising, they might be able to have the money for research and make the drugs here?

Mr. MacDermot: That is a separate question.

Mr. Hall: Will the Financial Secretary at least give this matter further attention? I am sure that he is sympathetic. Is he prepared to say that, when the Government next reduce the surcharge, this will be the first class of goods to have their attention?

Mr. MacDermot: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I gave specific attention to this matter before the recent reductions were made. I shall do so again whenever the possibility of further reductions comes up.

Mr. Dell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now remit the import surcharge on goods manufactured in developing countries.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.

Mr. Dell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be entirely within the spirit of the new Part IV of the G.A.T.T. and certainly of the U.N.C.T.A.D. to differentiate in favour of developing countries, especially as so much of these goods are in any case subject to quota arrangements? Cannot he reconsider it?

Mr. Callaghan: I am aware of the point about Part IV and I think that there is a compelling argument here; but, on the whole, it is far better for us to work to get rid of the import surcharge altogether rather than make particular discriminations of this sort.

Mr. William Clark: Does not the Chancellor agree that the best way to help developing countries would be to alleviate the penal effects of Corporation Tax and the abolition of O.T.C.s?

Mr. Callaghan: I assume that that is a matter which we shall be debating in the course of the Finance Bill.

Export Rebate Scheme

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the export rebate scheme.

Mr. Callaghan: It is a little early for a progress report, but teething troubles are being well overcome, and the scheme now has a substantial number of satisfied claimants. With permission, I will circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the Chancellor aware that a large number of manufacturers are disappointed because the export or confirming houses which handle some of their orders are claiming this rebate even if they do not take the risk of financing the goods? If he could make a clear statement to help manufacturers, this may save litigation and be very useful.

Mr. Callaghan: That was the case, but I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the problems have mostly been ironed out in the last few weeks. I understand that there are very few troubles of this nature now.

Following is the statement:
Export rebate is claimable quarterly, and the first claim period ended on 31st January. As claims cart be made up to three months from the end of the period, the closing date for first claims was only a few days ago. Moreover, because of various initial difficulties which had to be resolved, a number of firms, including some very large exporters, have been granted extensions of time and have not yet sent in their first claims.
It is, therefore, impossible at this stage to give meaningful figures either of amounts claimed or of amounts paid out, but the claims that had actually been received by 21st April, together with certain large claims known to be outstanding at that date, were estimated to be likely to total some £18 million. The estimated annual rate of rebate payment for the current financial year, for the purposes of the Financial Statement, 1965–66, was £84 million, and even if it turns out that the first quarter's claims do not quite come up to that rate, there seems to be

every prospect that, as exporters become increasingly aware of the benefits of the scheme, the figure for the year as a whole will not be significantly below the estimate.
The total number of potential claimants is estimated at between 10,000 and 15,000.
There were some initial uncertainties about the party entitled to claim rebate in certain types of transactions, particularly those involving confirming houses; these have now been largely resolved. Some export transactions are in their nature very complex and, as would he expected with any new scheme, many detailed points connected with the first quarter's claims are at present being discussed between the Customs and Excise and individual firms. None appears to be insoluble, and most will be settled once and for all by the discussions now going on, so that a regular and workable basis of claim will he established for the future. Some relaxations in the claim procedures have already been introduced, and the Customs is always ready to consider further suggestions by the exporters concerned for making the scheme work as smoothly and conveniently as possible.

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will simplify the working of the export rebate scheme by introducing one standard percentage for all classes of goods.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's Answer of 12th March to his Questions about the rates of export rebate for textiles.

Mr. Barnett: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that, as it takes so long for the small exporter and the Purchase Tax officer to check an enormous number of schedules and categories of one shipment, or even one bale, it would help considerably if the system were simplified, and indeed it would be just as fair to have an overall percentage throughout?

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot agree that it would be just as fair. It would mean in some cases that some exporters would be receiving a rebate far in excess of their entitlement, and in other cases far less. But in any event it would be impossible because it would be wholly unacceptable internationally. This rebate is justified only because it is calculated on the basis of the actual taxes which are incurred by the particular industries.

Mr. Fell: Is the rebate subject to tax?

Mr. MacDermot: That is the subject of a separate Question.

Mr. Stainton: Is a compromise possible here? Is it possible to have a flat rate for an industry, or a sector of an industry? I think that if we could achieve this it would go a long way to meeting the question at the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. MacDermot: That is the way in which the rebate is calculated. It is done by industries.
Later—

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order regarding a supplementary question which, you may recall, I asked to Question No. 27. It was a very simple supplementary question. I asked whether the rebate was subject to tax. I was informed by the Financial Secretary that he would refrain from answering the supplementary question as there was another Question on the Order Paper about it. I have not had very long to look, but I have tried to ascertain whether there was another Question and I cannot see one. Has one any protection—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One can be as wrong as anybody else, but sitting here listening, my recollection is that the Minister said it was a different question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—the reason why I think I heard that was I was puzzling about the proposition. In any event, I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot help him.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the assumption that every word the hon. Gentleman says is quite right and that the Minister was forecasting a non-existing Question, I still could not help him. I am sorry.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order, may I simply ask you, Mr. Speaker, in this sort of case, supposing I was absolutely right and there happened to be no Question on the Order Paper about it, what sort of protection a back bench Member gets against a Minister who misleads a back bench Member?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, if the Minister were deliberately misleading the House,

the hon. Member could put down an appropriate Motion and ask for time to discuss it. That would not give me any chance to help him in those circumstances.

Bank of England (Staff)

Mr. Freeson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a direction, in the public interest, under Section 4(1) of the Bank of England Act, 1946 to the Bank of England to remove the condition of employment for shorthand-typists that they should be British by birth and parentage, and the similar condition imposed on applicants for the position of electrician at the Bank's printing works.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Freeson: Is there not an important point of principle and policy here? What possible purpose is served by putting a discriminatory clause in the terms and conditions of employment for shorthand-typists and electricians as set out in my Question? Will my hon. and learned Friend look at this matter again?

Mr. MacDermot: There is no question of the Government putting in any discriminatory clause because it is not a matter for the Government. The appointment, remuneration and conditions of service of the staff of the Bank of England are domestic matters determined by the Court of Directors. It is laid down in the Charter of the Bank that these are matters within the province of the Court.

Sir J. Maitland: Whether it be right or wrong, is it not an example of racial discrimination?

Mr. MacDermot: It is not for me to answer questions about the policy of the Court of Directors on employment. These are matters left within the discretion of the Court. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations to the Court of Directors, he can do so.

Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems a little odd that the Financial Secretary should answer questions and then say that he is not empowered to answer a question on the same matter. Has not something gone wrong?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think so.

Export Finance

Mr. Dell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as part of the Government's programme for the promotion of exports, he will arrange the availability of cheap export finance to cover periods of credit of less than three years.

Mr. Callaghan: The extesion of the fixed 5½ per cent. interest rate down to credits of two years for certain contracts has already been announced. The possibility of still further improvements remains under active study.

Mr. Dell: While welcoming the advance which has been made since I put down the Question, may I ask whether there is any reason why there has to be any lower limit to the credit period? Why cannot we arrange cheap export finance irrespective of the period of credit?

Mr. Callaghan: It is not quite as simple as that. We want also to get payment as soon as we can and an excessive extension of credit facilities on too easy terms might discourage early payment. We have, therefore, to try to effect a balance.

Mr. Bessell: In any review which he makes, will the Chancellor consider the needs of the small export companies, who are finding it difficult to obtain export credit facilities?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, certainly. The present figure is, I think, £50,000. I certainly do not close my mind to any improvements that will stimulate exports in any direction. There are no sacred cows in this field.

Spirits and Tobacco (Excise Duty)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider replacing the present excise duty on spirits and tobacco with ad valorem charges.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Sheldon: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that the lack of price competition in the spirits and tobacco industry is largely due to the high level of duty compared with the small effects of price changes? Would he not further agree that ad valorem charges, by relating duty to the cost, would be likely to re-

flect a reduction in prices in the shops at no charge to the Exchequer?

Mr. MacDermot: I doubt whether it would have that effect. Owing to the high rate of the duty, slight differences in price would be enormously magnified by the duty if the ad valorem system were adopted. This would produce serious fluctuations in the revenue and considerable friction in the trade. Also, from an administrative viewpoint it would be necessary to examine the prices with great care to see whether they were acceptable as a basis for charging the duty.

International Liquidity

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to increase international liquidity.

Mr. Callaghan: International liquidity can effectively be increased only by international agreement, which I shall do my best to foster. As my hon. Friend knows, international discussions are now in progress on the subject which will, I hope, enable some further advance to be made.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern at the action of certain Governments in effecting a reduction in international liquidity? Is he further aware that, as long as this view persists, international agreement is somewhat unlikely? Will he consider encouraging the use of bilateral swop arrangements as a means of increasing international liquidity?

Mr. Callaghan: Bilateral swop arrangements have increased over the last year or 18 months, thus increasing liquidity, and there is no reason why they should not be extended. Certainly, we have to do our best to overcome any shortfall which there may be in liquidity arising from the great efforts which are being made by the United States and ourselves, under great pressure from the creditor countries, to put our balance of payments right.

Government Employees (Transferability of Pension Rights)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent Her Majesty's Government afford transferability of pension rights to their employees.

Mr. MacDermot: Established civil servants may have their pension rights transferred on movement to almost any other pensionable employment in the public services or in the nationalised industries. They may also preserve the pension they have so far accrued on transfer to employment which is approved for this purpose or on voluntary resignation over the age of 50.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not that generally mean that there is no real transferability in public service and in or out of the public service? As the Government have indicated that transferability is their objective, why does not the Minister set an example?

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot accept what the hon. Member says. The public service sets an example in this matter of transferability of pension rights. There is complete transferability within the public service and there is considerable transferability from the public sector to the private sector. One cannot extend that, however, unless it is reciprocated. It is because so many of the pension arrangements in the private sector are not adjusted to facilitate similar transferability that it is difficult to extend it. We are, however, looking into the whole question. It is at present being studied by a sub-committee of the Minister of Labour's National Joint Advisory Council.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the Minister agree that to set an example in this extremely difficult field—I do not underrate the difficulties—would be the best way of bringing the result that most of us want to achieve?

Mr. MacDermot: I repeat that we are setting an example.

Foreign Investment

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase or decrease he anticipates in foreign investment in the United Kingdom over the next year.

Mr. Callaghan: I expect an increase in such investment.

Mr. Digby: Cannot the Chancellor indicate how far the present trend—last year, I think, the increase was 12 per cent.—will be continued and how far his

Budget proposals will reduce the increase which he would otherwise have?

Mr. Callaghan: As regards the second part of that question, the hon. Member obviously still does not understand that the Corporation Tax will have the effect of increasing the attraction of foreign investment in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that in the course of our debates hon. Members opposite will learn a few things about this tax. As regards the first part of the question, I do not think that it is possible to make an estimate, but certainly I would expect to see foreign private investment in this country rather higher this year than it was last year, because we are getting our balance of payments under control.

Mr. Ridsdale: With the advantage of hindsight, would not the Chancellor agree that he caused a loss of foreign investment in this country by blowing up a financial crisis which was not there?

Mr. Callaghan: No. Foreign investment statistics extend over a period of 12 months and, unfortunately, because of the growing deficit that existed in this country during the 12 months of 1964, foreign private investment, particularly portfolio investment, was not at the level at which I expect to see it this year.

State-run Unit Trusts

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his study of a State-run unit trust, if he will consider setting up a series of State-run unit trusts covering the differing yields and degree of risk which different types of small investor would be prepared to take.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not propose to embark upon a Government unit trust scheme at the present time but the point raised by my hon. Friend will be kept in mind.

Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by having, for example, high-growth unit trusts we could set an example by providing for the transfer of funds from bingo halls and betting shops to better forms of investment in unit trusts, which would provide both a gain for the holders and a gain for the country?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, there is a great deal to be said in favour of unit trusts of this kind. I notice that one enterprising firm already proposes to set up a unit trust to take advantage of the new gains that will be secured through the introduction of the Corporation Tax.

Sir F. Bennett: Is not one of the unhappy consequences of present Government policy that bingo does not pay Capital Gains Tax whereas investment in gilt-edged does?

Mr. Callaghan: The only unhappy thing that I see at the moment is the faces of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Grant: Has the Chancellor had the benefit of reading a memorandum on this subject prepared by the Wider Share Ownership Council? If so, will he heed the warning therein that the management of such unit trusts should be entirely separate from the Government to avoid back-door nationalisation?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member came on a deputation to me, when he made this point. I thought that I gave him satisfaction then.

Building Society Funds

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the disequilibrium between the demand for, and the supply of, building society funds; and if he will take steps to remove this disequilibrium.

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to reduce rates of interest for owner-occupiers buying houses on mortgage from building societies.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the building societies' present difficulties will be temporary, and in any case they have been exaggerated. As for helping owner-occupiers, I refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in the debate on home loans last Thursday.

Mr. Alison: Is the Chancellor aware that that is a very unsatisfactory and misleading Answer? Is he further aware that the net increase in building society savings in the first quarter of this year is something like 50 per cent. down on the comparable quarter of 1964 and it is

likely to be something like 75 per cent. down in the June quarter, and that this reflects loss of confidence not in the building societies but in Government policy?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know that it is very profitable to swop figures, but those which I have show that the total receipts of principal by the building societies in the first quarter were within an ace of being a record, whilst the mortgage advances were higher than in any comparable quarter of which I have information to hand. The hon. Member had, therefore, better try to find another hare to run.

Mr. Bence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building society of which I am a member is as strong as it ever was and that it is going through temporary difficulties, which, I am sure, will soon be overcome? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, however, that owner-occupiers and young people wishing to marry and to house themselves are looking to the time when he can introduce a fixed, stable interest technique whereby they can really get stability into their housing requirements instead of the chaos that existed over the last 20 years?

Mr. Callaghan: I have no doubt that many people are today finding things difficult because of high interest rates and I regret very much that it has been necessary to increase interest rates in this way in order that the country should escape from its economic problems. I certainly repeat the undertaking that was given, and by which we stand, that as soon as economic considerations allow, we shall most certainly bring some aid into this quarter, where it is very necessary.

Mr. Heath: Is the Chancellor aware that the question to which my hon. Friend referred was the amount of funds available? When the right hon. Gentleman gives a supplementary answer such as that which he has just given to my hon. Friend, he gives the impression that he himself does not know the real position. We all agree that the actual funds coming forward in the first quarter were only £1 million less, but is the Chancellor not aware—as he listened to last week's debate he must be—that withdrawals were £66 million more? This is a fact which he overlooks entirely. What is more, is


the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major insurance companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—hon. Members opposite do not like it—one of the major insurance companies has announced to-day that it cannot continue with this arrangement for home loans?

Mr. Callaghan: There is no doubt that the efforts made, particularly by the United States, to balance its payments has caused the withdrawal of a great deal of funds from Europe and equally from this country. The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) is quite right to concentrate on the withdrawals which have taken place. Until we can get international liquidity arrangements on a more settled basis, as we were saying just now, then as long as building societies have to lend for 20 years, but borrow on a seven-day or even a one-day basis, these temporary difficulties are bound to recur from time to time.

Members (Tape Recorder)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a tape recorder in the House of Commons for the use of Members.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Kitson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the last time I asked the B.B.C. for the transcript of a Minister's speech it offered me a tape? Does he not think that it would be very much more satisfactory if back bench Members had a tape recorder on which to play these tapes?

Hon. Members: Buy one.

Mr. MacDermot: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to a personal tape recording machine, or whether he wants a tape recorder for recording the proceedings in the House.

Mr. Kitson: No. I should like a tape recorder so that one could play back Ministers' speeches if the transcripts which one were sent were on tape.

Mr. MacDerrnot: I think that it is apparent that the hon. Gentleman is asking for a tape recorder for recording proceedings in the House.

Mr. Kitson: No.

Mr. MacDermot: If so, he should put down that question, and the matter will receive consideration.

Legislation (Simplification of Language)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps, pending the comprehensive legislation on law reform planned by the Government, to simplify the language used in the legislation now in preparation by the Government.

Mr. MacDermot: The language of the legislation now in preparation by the Government will be as simple as the subject matter permits, but the primary objective in legislation must always be certainty.

Mr. Hughes: Is not that Answer too legalistic? Should not the ordinary citizen be taken into account? Will he not have to construe the new and beneficial series of Statutes which are being brought forward by the Government, and is this not, therefore, a very urgent matter which should be dealt with at once?

Mr. MacDermot: The Answer was as legalistic as the subject matter. Certainly it is our desire that Statutes should be phrased in language as simple as possible, but this in itself has its pitfalls. Hon. Members who belong to the legal profession will be well aware that the body of Statutes which was deliberately designed in ordinary layman's language, namely, the Rent Acts, has probably as a result given rise to more litigation than any other series of Statutes.

Foreign Currencies

Mr. Hamling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to prevent United Kingdom residents and business undertakings from obtaining supplies of foreign currencies in advance of legitimate needs during periods of pressure on sterling.

Mr. Callaghan: Under existing Exchange Control rules, residents may acquire spot exchange only on production of documentary evidence that the amount is properly due. They may enter into forward purchases of foreign currency only where there is a firm commercial contract involving a commitment expressed in


foreign currency and due to be settled within six months. These rules are consistent with the normal practices of trade. I have no present intention of altering them.

Scottish and English Banknotes

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to allow Scottish and English banknotes to be accepted as legal tender in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is rather incongruous that notes in circulation in Scotland by Scottish banks are not legal tender in England, while English Treasury notes are not legal tender in Scotland and that this is especially incongruous as it arises out of an archaic Act? Will he consider, in the age of law reform, bringing this legislation up to date and making it convenient for all to exchange these notes in any part of the realm?

Mr. MacDermot: My hon. Friend is treading on dangerous ground in asking for law reform on this subject. Scottish banks enjoy a privilege in being allowed to retain their own note issues. This is a special privilege granted to them in the Peel legislation of 1844 to 1845 under which English banks were deprived of their power to issue notes. These Scottish notes were never legal tender and I do not think at this stage that a proposal to confer an additional benefit on the Scottish banks would be widely welcomed, and nor is it being asked for by the Scottish banks themselves. Bank of England £1 and 10s. notes are legal tender in Scotland.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: In view of the difference of the employment situation in Scotland as compared with England and the declared regional policy of the Government, would not the hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to release those Scottish banknotes which he proposes to put into the Bank of England and thus enable Scotland to prosper on a different basis?

Mr. MacDermot: Once again, Scotland, was given preferential treatment by my right hon. Friend in the matter of special deposits.

The Earl of Dalkeith: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that Bank of England banknotes are legal currency in Scotland? At the same time, will he bear in mind that there are certain advantages in the present system of Scottish banknotes in that in London on more than one occasion one has received £4 15s. change for an article costing 5s. when giving a Scottish £ note? Will he consider keeping the status quo?

Mr. MacDermot: Bank of England £1 and 10s. notes are legal tender in Scotland. For some reason of which I am not sure, £5 and £10 notes are not.

Mr. Lipton: Is it necessary in this small and overcrowded island for two forms of currency to be in circulation? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in public houses and other places in northern and southern England proffering Scottish notes causes alarm, confusion and discontent?

Mr. MacDermot: That is a further reason for not seeking further legislation to alter the situation.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to amend the Bank Notes Act of 1765 so as to enable Scottish banks to issue 10s. notes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. There are already at least twenty different types of Scottish banknote, and I do not think any move to increase that number is necessary or would indeed be generally welcomed.

Mr. Dempsey: But is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Scottish banks issue certain notes with the exception, generally speaking, of 10s. notes? Would it not complete the picture and retain Scotland's distinctive characteristics in the issue of currency to give the facility to issue a greater number of 10s. notes?

Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps the absence of this characteristic makes it even more distinctive.

Government Offices, Blackpool

Mr. Miscampbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to encourage Government Departments to establish offices in Blackpool.

Mr. MacDermot: We plan to move a division of the Ministry of Health, employing about 400 staff, from London to Fleetwood, probably in 1967. Fleetwood is within easy reach of Blackpool.

Mr. Miscampbell: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that Answer so far as it goes. Will he bear in mind that at times our unemployment problem is considerably worse than that of areas which are designated development districts?

Mr. MacDermot: It is for that reason that the Blackpool area has had a good share of Civil Service employment. In Blackpool at present there are the headquarters staffs of some 300 of the Ministry of Health and 1,800 of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. In addition, within the Blackpool area there is the North-West District Office of the Land Registry, in Lytham, employing some 550 staff, and there is also the Premium Bonds Division of the Post Office employing some 2,700.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the total number of Government employees transferred to the whole of Scotland to date is only 700? Will he consider increasing that number?

Mr. MacDermot: It will be substantially increased when the Post Office Savings Bank headquarters is transferred to Glasgow.

Young Married Couples (Taxation Relief)

Mr. Rose: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explore methods of affording special taxation relief to young couples in the very early stages of married life.

Mr. MacDermot: I doubt whether there are sufficient reasons for a special concession in these cases.

Mr. Rose: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that this is the period in life when one has to face the most expense and when income is at its lowest, and will he bear in mind this section of the community for future tax concessions?

Mr. MacDermot: I am not sure that that is universally true. Other taxpayers

often have exceptional expenditure to meet and it is right to point out that our Income Tax law already gives favourable treatment in the first year of marriage, particularly when the wife goes on working.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving some special taxation relief to young couples until the building society rate comes down to 3 per cent.?

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Bessell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to rectify the various Purchase Tax anomalies; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Member is aware, apart from a minor amendment relating the value of goods for Purchase Tax purposes, my right hon. Friend was unable to propose any changes in Purchase Tax in this year's Budget.

Mr. Bessell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the very considerable expense and inconvenience which wholesalers and retailers suffer as a result of these anomalies, some of which are quite absurd? For example, Beecham's Powders are taxed, but Kwells are tax-free. False nails and eyelashes are tax-free, but curlers for eyelashes are taxed. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman reinvestigate this?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is hoping to slip into the shoes of the former Member for Kidderminster. With a tax of this kind one can always point to anomalies by comparing articles falling just one side of the line with those on the other. From time to time it is possible to review this tax, but my right hon. Friend was not able to do so this year.

Mr. Lomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow tax relief where musical instruments are purchased for use in schools.

Mr. MacDermot: I have nothing to add to the Answer given on 2nd February to a similar question from the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt).

Mr. Lomas: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a tax relief on musical instruments in many other countries, including the United States of America? Is he further aware that, provided the necessary safeguards are taken to stop abuses, this is something which should be encouraged in schools? I earnestly ask him to bear in mind that this could be done along the lines of the personal export scheme, and I hope that he and his right hon. Friend will look at this again.

Mr. MacDermot: I have looked into this suggestion, and I am aware of the provisions under American tax law, but, because of the way in which our Purchase Tax is administered, it is not practicable, and as a general rule we do not seek to make special concessions for particular users of taxable articles. If a distinction can be made as to a particular type of article, that is a different matter.

Mr. Buchan: Will my hon. and learned Friend have another look at this matter? I do not see why this problem is so intractable? It becomes, in a sense, a tax on knowledge. In education musical instruments play the rôle of books, and should be treated in the same way.

Mr. MacDermot: This is an argument which we encounter over many things purchased by local authorities for schools, but the general rule is that unless, as for example in the case of school desks, one can distinguish the article by its nature, the tax has to be paid.

Nigeria (Double Taxation Agreement)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to amend the double taxation agreement with Nigeria so that the provisions of Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1961, may be implemented and the tax relief granted by Nigeria to assist developing industries not be frustrated.

Mr. MacDermot: We are already in touch with Nigeria about the possible revision of the Double Taxation Agreement.

Mr. Tilney: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he is also in

touch with other developing countries which are very worried about the effect of the Finance Bill on private enterprise investment?

Mr. MacDermot: That goes far beyond the scope of the Question. My right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech that he would be seeking the renegotiation of many of these double taxation agreements.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not succeed in negotiating new double taxation reliefs, will he allow the present situation to continue, or will he maintain the withholding tax of 40 per cent. as against the Americans' 15 per cent.?

Mr. MacDermot: This is a matter which we shall debate on the Finance Bill, but it is far outside the scope of this Question.

Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes

Mr. Tilney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has received from the World Bank on the settlement of disputes over the treatment of foreign private investments in developing countries which are prepared to submit disputes to conciliation and arbitration by qualified persons of independent judgment; and whether he will sign a convention on this.

Mr. Callaghan: The World Bank has now invited member Governments to sign the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes prepared by the Bank. Her Majesty's Government propose to do this.

Mr. Tilney: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROME (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the main subjects which he discussed on his recent visit to Rome.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Rome.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Italy.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Rome.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Rome.

Mr. Gower: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Rome.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer hon. Members to the communiqué issued after my visit. With permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Digby: Is the Prime Minister aware that only extracts from the communiqué were printed even in The Times, and that the full text of the communiqué is not available in the Library this afternoon? Having read the extracts, I should like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. First, does the reference to A.N.F. mean that once again it received a lukewarm reception? Secondly, with regard to the study that is to be set up into the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, will he say who is going to undertake this study, and when it is to be taken up?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry about The Times, and I shall certainly put a copy of the communiqué in the Library right away.
With regard to the A.N.F., the position is as I described it last week after my return from Rome. Technical talks are going on in a working group on this question, I think in fact today, but, as I have said, and I think we are all realistic about this, there is not much prospect of any decision either on A.N.F., which we favour, or M.L.F. which some right hon. Gentlemen opposite favour, until after the German elections. That is the position.
The question of the peaceful use of atomic energy was raised by the Italians. They feel that we have a great deal to contribute, which we have, and would like to have joint talks about it. The joint talks will take place in a bilateral sense

with representatives of the A.E.A. and the Ministry of Technology on our side.

Mr. Hamling: Can my right hon. Friend say anything more about the discussions over E.F.T.A. and the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I informed the Italian Prime Minister about the initiatives that we were taking, the proposals that we were making for a Ministerial meeting of E.F.T.A. to discuss possible initiatives that might be taken, agreed with our colleagues in E.F.T.A.

Mr. Gower: Can the Prime Minister explain the emphasis given to the desirability of Britain taking a larger part in the unification of Europe, and, indeed, of Britain narrowing the gap between herself and the European Economic Community, in view of the fact that current Government economic and social policies, and their preoccupation with nationalisation and other irrelevant matters, must surely tend to increase the gap between Britain and Europe?

The Prime Minister: I remember once raising this question from the other side of the House. If we are to be told that we must join the Common Market because then we will not be free to decide to take into public ownership any industry—[Interruption.]—that was suggested. It is a very serious suggestion, and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be aware that the success which some countries in Europe have had in improving their economic position, not least the situation in France, was due to the extension of public ownership in those countries.
On the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question, relating to initiatives for bringing the Six and the Seven closer together, I have already explained that this was why I referred in Rome to the initiative that we were taking through E.F.T.A. It is important in these talks that we are able to speak, or E.F.T.A. is able to speak, altogether on behalf of the whole of E.F.T.A., and not just on behalf of individual countries.

Mr. Jackson: Can the Prime Minister give us a little more information about co-operation between Italy and Britain on the BAC 111 project?

The Prime Minister: I strongly stressed the desirability of the Italian Government not only co-operating with us, or ensuring that there was co-operation between the two industries concerned in production, but making this a reality by doing what they could to ensure that Alitalia bought British civil aircraft at the end of the production process.

Following is the information:

COMMUNIQUÉ ISSUED FOLLOWING THE TALKS IN ROME FROM 27 TO 29TH APRIL, 1965, BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (SIGNOR ALDO MORO) AND THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER (MR. HAROLD WILSON).

At the invitation of the President of the Council of Ministers, Signor Aldo Moro, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, paid an official visit to Rome from 27–29 April.

The British Prime Minister was received by the President of the Republic, Signor Giuseppe Saragat, with whom he had a long and cordial discussion.

The President of the Council and the British Prime Minister conducted a frank and thorough exchange of views on the international situation, with particular regard to the main problems of current mutual interest. On the Italian side the Vice-President of the Council of Ministers, Signor Nenni, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Signor Fanfani, the Minister of Defence, Signor Andreotti, the Minister of the Treasury, Signor Colombo, the Minister of Finance, Signor Tremelloni, and the Minister of Foreign Trade, Signor Mattarella, took part. The conversation took place in a friendly atmosphere and revealed a wide measure of agreement on the problems discussed.

The President of the Council and the Prime Minister reaffirmed their strong belief in the United Nations and their common determination to uphold the authority and strengthen the influence of the Organisation.

Particular attention was paid to the problems of disarmament and agreement was reached on the need for initiatives aimed at promoting measures of balanced and controlled disarmament. They agreed that their two Governments would make every effort to achieve progress at the current session of the United Nations Disarmament Commission and to bring about an early resumption of the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

The President of the Council and the Prime Minister agreed in emphasising the great importance of maintaining the strength and cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance. They agreed that in conforming with these aims their Governments would continue, together with other interested Governments, the study of methods of developing nuclear interdependence within the Alliance, including the proposals originally put forward in December 1964 by the British Government for an Atlantic Nuclear Force.

Reviewing the problems of Europe, the President of the Council explained the most recent developments and the present position with regard to the process of European unification. It was emphasised on the Italian side that the Italian Government had always considered British participation in the construction of Europe to be most desirable.

The President of the Council and the Prime Minister discussed the State of East-West relations and agreed that, in spite of all difficulties, it was important to preserve in the search for possible agreements and in efforts to reduce international tension.

The President of the Council and the British Prime Minister also discussed current problems in Africa, and the Far East in the light of their common desire to contribute to stability and to peaceful economic progress in those regions. The situation in South East Asia was the subject of particular attention. They recognised that the views of the two Governments largely coincided and expressed the hope that a peaceful solution would be found for the conflict in Vietnam and that the North Vietnamese and their partners would respond to recent initiatives to this end. They welcomed the possibility of a conference on Cambodia, which could contribute to peace and stability in the area.

There was a useful and detailed exchange of views on economic problems of common interest, with particular reference to the measures taken in both countries for the strengthening of their economies and the safeguarding of their respective currencies.

The main problems of international economic co-operation were also reviewed, including relations with the developing countries. The President of the Council and the Prime Minister agreed on the importance of maintaining international monetary stability and of giving early consideration, together with other interested Governments, to further measures to facilitate international payments and the expansion of world trade. They reaffirmed the resolve of their Governments to contribute to a successful outcome of the Kennedy Round. They also confirmed the importance which they attached to working to strengthen the ties between E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. and to reduce the divisions between them. The Prime Minister informed the President of the Council of the initiative announced by Her Majesty's Government with a view to bridging the gap between the two organisations and this was welcomed by the President.

There was wide agreement on the need to find means of strengthening the economic relations between the two countries particularly in the field of industrial and scientific co-operation. The President of the Council and the Prime Minister agreed that they would instruct the appropriate authorities on each side to engage in a study of the possibilities of Anglo-Italian bilateral co-operation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Special attention was also given to the possibilities of co-operation in the aeronautical field.

Finally, the President of the Council and the Prime Minister expressed warm satisfaction at the results of their friendly exchange of ideas


and reaffirmed their complete confidence in the growing co-operation between their two Governments in the interests not only of Anglo-Italian relations but also of world peace.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MINISTRIES

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister how many requests he has had in the last four months from members of the public and public bodies to establish new Ministries or to appoint new Ministers; and what replies he has given them.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the form in which I wanted to put down this Question was not accepted by the Table Office, and that that is why it is in the form in which is appears at the moment? Assuming that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are members of the public, will my right hon. Friend indicate how many requests he has had from them to set up new Ministries or new Departments?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry about the Table Office. I have had a number of suggestions at Question Time. Honestly, I did not think it worth while to spend my time, or the time of officials, counting up the number of proposals, but at various times hon. Members opposite have shown a great desire to expand the number of Ministries in the Government, and we have just had to resist them.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many suggestions he has had for the suppression of existing ones?

The Prime Minister: The answer is "None". So far as the public, and public bodies referred to in the Question, are concerned—I do not think even the hon. Member considers himself yet to be a public body—I am not aware of any proposals of this kind. But I have had from some hon. Members opposite a suggestion that we should expand the number of Ministries, while others have suggested getting rid of the most important Ministries.

Sir G. Nicholson: On the question of the appointment of new Ministers, how many broad hints has the right hon.

Gentleman had from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I understood that supplementary question. Did the hon. Member refer to "broad hints"? I am wondering how many people are going to follow the broad hint that he has given in the Daily Telegraph this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH VIETNAMESE CADETS (TRAINING)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in helping to mediate in the Vietnam war, he will, in order to retain a non-committed position, end the training of South Vietnamese officer cadets by British troops in Malaysia.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: How can Britain succeed as a mediator if she is helping one side in this way, and if we are publicly supporting every military action which the Americans take?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has got this wrong. So war as this jungle training is concerned, it is a question of providing very limited but useful facilities for training cadets of the South Vietnamese Government to resist internal jungle warfare such as we had in Malaya some years ago. It is not a question of helping one side against another. To use that phrase implies that North Vietnam is at war with South Vietnam—which not everybody has accepted. As I explained previously to the House, our position as co-chairman is not in any way affected. Nobody is trying to suggest that even the Russian position as co-chairman has been affected by the fact that, as we are told, they have been sending missiles and other military equipment to North Vietnam for use in what is a war across the frontiers. Although we have our views and the Russians have theirs, this should not prevent our getting together as co-chairmen to take the initiative to bring those concerned round a table to end the fighting.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Prime Minister aware that both his Government


and my Government have accepted that we must assist—[Interruption.]—that it is right that we should assist South Vietnam to maintain its independence against aggression, and that until aggression is given up from the north it is right to take such action as he proposes?

The Prime Minister: I have always disliked this form of terminology. It is true that the Queen's Government, both under the right hon. Gentleman and under me, have taken this view, and I think that it is right that we should provide this assistance in the sphere of jungle training in Commonwealth territory, which we do—and, indeed, we have a certain amount of successful expertise, going back to the period of fighting in Malaya. We are not in any way involved in any military operations of any kind within Vietnam.

Mr. Michael Foot: If this is a question of aggression, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, should not the matter be referred to the United Nations, so that it can decide whether aggression is taking place?

The Prime Minister: The help given by Her Majesty's Government in the matter of training South Vietnamese officers and others in resisting subversive jungle attacks of this kind began long before there was any question or suggestion of aggression or of cross-frontier movements of troops. This help was given to the South Vietnamese Government so that they could deal with activities of this kind within their own borders. It does not depend in any sense upon the assumption, or charge, or proof of aggression by North Vietnam.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to his hon. Friend that there is no such thing as a non-committed position for the United Kingdom in Vietnam, and that Her Majesty's Government, with the support of the House, are supporting the Americans in preventing South Vietnam being taken over by the Communists?

The Prime Minister: We have explained our position very fully in the past, both to our hon. Friends and to hon. Members opposite. I do not think that we need the help of the hon. Member to summarise the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES (POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS)

Mr. Lomas: asked the Prime Minister when he will introduce legislation to compel political parties to disclose their source of income.

The Prime Minister: Legislation to require companies to disclose their political contributions will be introduced as soon as practicable.

Mr. Lomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but I hope that he is aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are looking forward, as the whole nation must be, to discovering the names and details of the paymasters of the Tory Party.

The Prime Minister: I do not know that that is the attitude in which we approach these things. I am sure that now that they have had time to think and to form their secret working groups on policy, even right hon. Gentlemen opposite will probably agree that not only this desirable reform but voluntary action on their part to publish their party accounts would do more than anything else in their power to clean up British politics.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that from the point of view not only of political parties but public companies it is desirable that shareholders should know what they do with their profits and funds? Is he aware that his Answer will have considerable support from this side of the House, so long as he takes action quickly?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that while the Question asked me about legislation to compel political parties to disclose their source of income, my Answer referred to public companies disclosing their political contributions—because that was the pledge that we gave in the Gracious Speech at the beginning of this Session. We said that we would introduce legislation on those lines. We shall do it as quickly as practicable, and I am glad that we shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we shall have the support of the Leader of the Opposition, as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister what reports are received by Her Majesty's Government from the directors appointed by the Government on the Board of the British Petroleum Company on the working of the company.

The Prime Minister: The Government directors have a general obligation to report on all matters which they consider should be referred to, or brought to the notice of, Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the large share of financial control by the Government in British Petroleum, will my right hon. Friend arrange for reports by the Government directors to be made available to the House, and also arrange that Government directors should inform the Government of the reason why non-Government directors have recently been making criticisms of Government policy?

The Prime Minister: I have been wondering a little about this. I thought that I would like to see some of the reports put into the Treasury but on making inquiries I find that although reports are quite frequent they are mainly of an oral character, and that written official reports are not sent in. So it would be difficult to do what my right hon. Friend has in mind. As for the freedom of these directors to make political speeches, successive Governments have always left them on a pretty easy rein, although I am bound to wonder what would happen if the chairman of a company which had a 51 per cent. shareholding by Mr. Clore were to make a speech in those terms attacking Mr. Clore.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is it not a sinister aspect of Government ownership that members of the party opposite use it in an attempt to suppress free speech by responsible people?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman could not make anything look sinister if he tried. If he is attacking public ownership as exemplified by the 51 per cent. shareholding in the British Petroleum Company, he will recall that

this very successful decision and successful investment was made by Sir Winston Churchill very many years ago. I hope that he is not calling it in question.

Mr. Paget: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that Mr. Clore would be quite right to object, and that for a man who accepts office as director of a publicly-owned company to use that position to criticise the economic policy of the Government is quite wrong and should not be allowed?

The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not take all this too tragically. I used the phrase about keeping the directors on an easy rein. What I should be concerned about would be if there were decisions taken by the board of this company, in which the Government and the community have a majority shareholding, on grounds which might appear to be politically inspired or which might appear to be an adverse reaction to policies introduced in this House and ultimately passed by this House. This would be a very serious matter. If its decisions appeared in the short term harmful to this country on purely commercial considerations, that is different. But I am sure that the whole House would agree that the directors of this company have an obligation to the nation in view of the majority Government shareholding in it.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Prime Minister make himself quite clear? Will he make it plain that he does not intend to put any pressure on the chairman of British Petroleum, in particular, to refrain from putting forward the interests of his own shareholders and especially saving his own major shareholder from being the victim of its own folly?

The Prime Minister: The nation is the chairman's shareholder, or at least it accounts for the majority shareholding. I have made it clear that we would not be likely—I do not think that any Government have been likely—to put the same kinds of discipline or pressures on the chairman which a private majority shareholder would put on a team of directors. I have said that as long as his decision—and I am more concerned with his decision than his speeches—represents genuine commercial considerations and is taken in the interests of the country as


a whole, because the country is the majority shareholder, I do not think we should have any objection. If decisions were taken, or if there was any suspicion that they were being taken, because of political views expressed in speeches, we should all take a different view.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last thing which I would seek to do would be to restrict the right of anybody to express an opinion on any matter which came within that person's purview? What I am concerned about—and I beg my right hon. Friend to direct his attention to my Question—is whether it is possible for hon. Members to have made available to them the reports by the Government directors. If the Government directors are not doing their job efficiently, would it not be advisable to change the directors?

The Prime Minister: As I made clear, the reports which we get—I think that this is a convenient way of working—are mainly oral and mainly informal. The directors are in frequent touch with the Treasury. But I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether anything more formal is needed in the form of written reports. If there is, we will certainly consider whether these reports could be made available to the House.

NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES (REFERENCES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ENGLISH: To ask the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what cases he proposes to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With permission I will now answer Question No. 76.
The Government have decided to refer three price cases, those of standard bread and of the flour used in its manufacture; of soap and detergents; and the rates for road haulage as recommended to its members by the Road Haulage Association.
These are all cases of special significance for the cost of living or for industrial costs and give rise to special concern.
The price of the standard loaf was again increased last November following a series of increases as a result of which the price has gone up very substantially since the beginning of 1960.
The prices of many soaps and detergents have increased substantially over the past year.
In the case of road haulage rates, there have been three increases recommended in nine months. The Minister of Transport has asked the Road Haulage Association to postpone the effective date of its latest recommendation by a period not exceeding four weeks to give the Board time to make its Report.
Representatives of the industries and trades concerned have been told of the Government's intention, and I am confident that they will co-operate to the best of their ability in the Board's inquiries.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend impress on the Board the necessity for a fairly speedy answer to the matters referred to it?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that there is any doubt about that. The hope is that the Board will be able to let us have answers within six weeks or two months.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not contended by the Road Haulage Association that part of the increase in its prices is due to Government action? If this Is true, will the Government appear and give evidence in the matter when it is examined?

Mr. Brown: I am very clear that increases in prices are being passed on by a number of people without it being plain whether the increased charges reflect the reasons which are given. One of the reasons for having this inquiry is to see how much justification there is for the increases.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome this attack on increased prices? Does the reference of these particular increased prices to the Board mean that they are regarded by him, prima facie, as unjustified?

Mr. Brown: No. It would be quite wrong to think that. We have picked these cases for the reasons which I have given. They constitute cases which are of special concern, special interest and special significance either to the cost of living or because of their effect on other costs generally. It does not mean that we have decided in advance that they are wrong. We think that it is important in the interests of traders, manufacturers and consumers that these cases should now be examined.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman used the term "we have decided". What machinery has he within his Department for deciding which cases will be put to the Board for investigation?

Mr. Brown: The Government have decided. The Government decide.

Mr. Delargy: Further to the statement made by the Leader of the Liberal Party about the Road Haulage Association, is my right hon. Friend aware that of the three recent increases imposed by the Association even the Association itself has said that only one of them was due to Government action?

Mr. Brown: As we have referred the matter to the Board, I think that it would be much better if we let the Board examine it in an independent and impartial way, uninfluenced by feelings from outside.

Mr. Ridsdale: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why some of the recent wage increases in publicly-controlled industries have not been sent to the Board, particularly those in the Post Office?

Mr. Brown: I have always made it clear that in my view the right place to try to begin to break the inflationary spiral is at the point of prices. Wage increases which have been part of the element in increased costs certainly become available for investigation. I am considering other cases. If I think it proper, I will recommend to my colleagues that a reference should be made in these cases, too.

Mr. Maxwell: If the Board should find that any of these three industries

have unfairly passed on increases in prices to the public would my right hon. Friend say how he intends that they should be forced to rescind these increases or not pass them on?

Mr. Brown: Shall we at least wait and see whether that is the point we have reached?

Mr. Stratton Mills: To create the right climate for this kind of inquiry, would it not have been better, at the same time, to have referred some price increases in the public sector back to this Board?
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), about the one-third increase in the Post Office letter post charges? Is he aware that on the most recent accounts published for the year ending 31st March, 1964, it was shown that that section was making a profit of £8 million?

Mr. Brown: On the latter point, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, if Ministers in the previous Government had not hidden the situation we should not have been confronted with this situation. If they had taken a rather more balanced view of the matter, they might have been able to succeed better.
I have now forgotten the other question which the hon. Gentleman asked me.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not have been better to create the right climate by referring some of the price increases in the public sector.

Mr. Brown: The answer is "No". On judgment, I decided not. If private enterprise had to go through the hoops which public enterprise has to do, there might not have been the same need for this machinery. We are now requiring private enterprise to tell us the kind of things that public enterprise is already asked to tell us.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This may be debated one day, but it will have to be when there is a Question before the House.

PARLIAMENT

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the delaying powers of the House of Lords in respect of legislation.
The House will recall that the Parliament Acts of 1916 and 1949 successfully reduced that power so that it operated for only one year. My view is that the period is still one year too long. No one could logically defend such a right residing in such an undemocratic, unrepresentative, archaic, museum - like Tory-dominated Chamber. My action today is not inspired wholly by the episode of the War Damage Bill on 13th April, although I must put it on record that, to use a current phrase, it "put a tiger in my tank".
The House will recollect that the Second Reading of that Bill was passed by this House with a majority of 93. It was also passed in the House of Lords on Second Reading by 45 votes to 22. I ask the House to note those figures—45 to 22. In the Committee stage of the Bill, on 13th April, the Government were heavily defeated in the House of Lords by a vote of 144 to 69, allegedly on grounds of principle, that retrospective legislation was involved and that the Government were infringing the rule of law. On the face of things, it seemed to lend force to the observation by Walter Bagehot, 100 years ago, that
The order of nobility … prevents the rule of wealth—the religion of gold.
Having an inquiring nature, I decided to make an analysis of the 144 peers who voted "Content" on that occasion. I found that 54 of them had not voted before in this Session. Indeed, one of them took his seat that very day, and was a Burmah Oil shareholder. The aggregate directorships involved in the case of these 144 amounted to 415, an average of three per peer. These included 110 chairmanships. There were 21 banking directorships; 14 chemicals; 11 property; 7 steel; 6 oil; and the usual Tory "beerage" amounting to 6—a genuine cross-section of the British public.
One of them, Lord Strathalmond, took his seat in April, 1955. He had not

opened his mouth for 10 years. Maybe there were good reasons for that. It may be that the reasons were just as good as those for which he attended on 13th April, because he was, until last December, a director of Burmah Oil—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has full scope to develop his point, but I think that to ensure he is within order he should make clear once and for all now that he is not suggesting that votes were cast in another place because of any unavowed motive. If he makes that clear, he may go on.

Mr. Hamilton: I was about to come to that point, Mr. Speaker. You anticipated me by about three seconds.
I have here a list of the titled shareholders in Burmah Oil. It runs to 60 foolscap pages and about 170 peers are involved. Thirty-eight of them voted, "Content" on 13th April—a very good word that, "Content".
To come to the point you have just raised, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to believe that 38 were motivated solely by a high regard for the rule of law and their dislike of retrospective legislation. I should be very glad to make a supreme effort to believe that their presence in the House of Lords when the Burmah Oil interests were being considered was purely coincidental. It seems to me, on the evidence I have been able to collect, that the House of Lords was not so much acting as a Chamber of Parliament and debating matters of fundamental principle as a shareholders' meeting discussing future policy. Indeed, I would say that at the last general meeting of the Burmah Oil Company there were probably fewer shareholders than there were in the House of Lords—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point about this is that the other place is not here to defend itself. I therefore must assume a mantle which will ensure that no discourtesy as between the Houses should occur. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to couch his brief explanation of his Bill—which is all that I am permitted to allow—in terms which would not be discourteous to the other House of Parliament.

Mr. Hamilton: That is an extremely difficult exercise, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to do my best.
The point which I am trying to make is quite simply that, along the corridor, there is another Chamber which can delay, thwart and defeat every single bit of legislation which is introduced and passed by this House. When the Lords claim, as they did on this occasion, that they were doing it on grounds of high principle, that they objected to delegated legislation and to the infringement of the rule of law, that is denied by another case which I shall mention in passing.
I refer to The Gambia case. Hon. Members may recall that on 28th May, 1963, the Commonwealth Relations Secretary announced in this House that he was setting aside by Statutory Instrument—by delegated legislation—the judgment of the West African Court of Appeal invalidating certain elections in The Gambia. That matter, which involved precisely the same principles as Burmah Oil, was not even mooted in the House of Lords.
I come directly to the purpose of my Bill by reference to what has happened in the Lords this Session. I have just given what amounts to the hors d'oeuvres about Burmah Oil. The main meal will come when the Amendments come back to this House. Meanwhile, I want to put on record what has happened in the Lords this Session. There have been 10 Divisions and the Government have been defeated on six occasions. The average number of defeats per Session during the last 13 years, under a Tory Government, was two, or, at most, three. In some years it was never defeated at all. Clearly, they are "chancing their arm" in this Session, with the Government constituted as it is.
The intolerable fact, as I have said, is that the House can delay, thwart and defeat at will any Measure passed and accepted by this House and in this Parliament. The most controversial legislation is yet to come—steel, the Lands Commission, and the rest. In my view, the threat to create a sufficient number of peers to outnumber the Tories in the other place is no answer. Nor is it sufficient, in my view, to wait for a mandate, as the Prime Minister himself suggested. We should accept the challenge now and, if need be, cut the Summer Recess to do so.
My Bill would be short, simple, unequivocal and moderate. It is in this conciliatory spirit that I ask leave of the House to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Michael Foot, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. William Hamling, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Cyril Bence, Mrs. Renée Short and Mr. Colin Jackson.

PARLIAMENT

Bill to abolish the delaying powers of the House of Lords in respect of legislation, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25th June and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

Orders of the Day — GAS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(MODIFICATION OF SECTION 52 OF GAS ACT 1948.)

(1) Section 52 of the principal Act (which prohibits any new piped supply of gas except with the consent of the Area Board and in accordance with such conditions as may be attached to that consent) shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2) An Area Board shall give their consent under that section to the supply of gas if the supply is for such purposes as are mentioned in the next following subsection.

(3) The said purposes are industrial purposes which do not consist of or include the use as a fuel of the gas which it is proposed to supply except in so far as the gas is required to provide heat or other energy required—

(a) for a process in which the gas is used otherwise than as a fuel; or
(b) where such a process is one of a series, for any further process in the same series, not being a process in which a bulk product is converted into manufactured articles;
and in determining whether any industrial purposes are as mentioned in this subsection the use of any gas derived, otherwise than as a by-product, from the gas which it is proposed to supply shall be treated as the use of that gas.

(4) If any question arises whether the purposes for which gas is to be supplied are purposes mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, it shall be determined by the Minister.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of the said section 52 an Area Board shall


not attach any conditions to their consent to a supply of gas for purposes so mentioned, except conditions requiring the supplier of the gas to provide, periodically or on request by the Board, information with respect to the type of gas supplied, the amount supplied and the use of the gas supplied; and any person aggrieved by any such condition may refer it to the Minister, who may confirm, vary or revoke it or impose instead some other condition which the Area Board could have imposed under this subsection.

(6) The said section 52 shall not apply to natural gas gotten in Great Britain in pursuance of a licence under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934.—[Mr. Lee.]

3.55 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): I beg to move, That the Clause be read the Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it might be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments to the Title, Nos. 27 and 29.

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That would be convenient.
To continue on the note of non-controversial legislation, hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill will recall that an Opposition Amendment was moved during the course of our proceedings. Indeed, I believe that, during the Second Reading debate, the Bill was criticised for failing to include any provision on the monopoly which the gas industry enjoys of piped gas supplies by virtue of Section 52 of the 1948 Act. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) referred to consultations which the Ministry had initiated during the summer of last year with the gas, oil and chemical industries about the possible amendment of that Section.
The hon. Member complained on that occasion that, as the Section now stands, it allows the gas boards to claim authority over the disposal of a large number of gaseous chemicals transmitted by pipeline with which they have nothing whatever to do. He then went on to urge that the opportunity presented by the Bill should be taken to bring the 1948 Act into line with the Continental Shelf Act of 1964 and that, at the same time, the Government should consider the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, which also makes provision in respect of the supply of natural gas.
When we reached the Committee stage, as I said, there was also an Amendment moved by the Opposition to this effect. I pointed out on that occasion that we were not prepared to come to a hasty conclusion on these matters merely in order to put something in the Bill before we had had ample time to consider it. I did not then feel that it would be satisfactory to accept any kind of Amendments which suited one of the contesting parties, but which would plainly be against the interests of another of the parties.
I stressed, however, that the Government intended to continue with the work which had been done in the industry, to look at Section 52 so that we could reach a view of what was best in the general interests of our economy. I then gave an assurance that I would do everything possible to bring the parties together and to get a solution of the problem, if possible, in time for a Government Amendment to be tabled during the Report stage of the Bill.
The Clause is in fulfilment of the undertaking which I then gave. It is the outcome of a meeting which was held at the Ministry, at which the Petroleum Industry Advisory Committee, the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers and the Gas Council were represented. It represents a compromise between different viewpoints, but it is one which, I believe, meets the reasonable requirements of the parties concerned, even though, as every compromise, it has not given all of them all the things which they would have liked to have.
4.0 p.m.
In our discussions in Committee I told the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) that I would try to get a compromise to meet all the real difficulties which he had outlined. I said that I had no wish to impede the chemical industry or any other industry and that I did not want to inhibit them in the great work they were doing.
As I see it, the new Clause represents a course of action which those who are practically involved in these matters have discussed together round the table at meetings which we have called. I believe it is a balanced sensible solution and I ask the House to accept it in that spirit.
Two principal changes will be made if the new Clause is passed. First, it is made obligatory for the gas boards to give their consent to the supply of gases for the same purposes as were laid down in Section 9(4) of the Continental Shelf Act; that is, to an industrial supply for "non-fuel" purposes. Secondly, the Clause provides that natural gas obtained from the British mainland under a licence issued under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, shall no longer be within the scope of Section 52 of the principal Act. Hon. Members will remember that natural gas obtained under the Continental Shelf Act was taken out of the scope of Section 52 by Section 9(1) of that Act.
Subsection (1) provides for Section 52 of the principal Act to have effect subject to the following provisions of the new Clause. Subsection (2) provides that an area board shall give its consent under Section 52 if the supply of gas is for such purposes as are set out in subsection (3), which closely follows Section 9(4) of the Continental Shelf Act. The effect of these two subsections is that the Gas Board's consent must be given to a supply of gas in pipes where it is to be used for industrial processing and not as a fuel.
In such a case, part of the gas supplied may be used to provide heat or energy for the actual process through which the gas is put, or for any further process in the same series, other than one for converting bulk products into manufactured articles. The process must, however, involve more than the mere reforming of the gas; otherwise the gas industry's monopoly of gas supplies for fuel use could be breached by someone setting up a plant which merely altered the calorific value of the gas he had obtained and left him free to use this derived gas for fuel purposes. It is the purpose of the last three lines of subsection (3) to prevent this happening. They do not, however, prevent the use of gases which are by-products of a genuine non-fuel process by the person operating the process, but he will not, of course, be able to supply them to third parties through pipes without the consent of an Area Board.
Subsection (4) provides for determination by the Minister of any dispute as to whether the purposes for which gas is to

be supplied fall within the purposes set out in subsection (3). Subsection (5) restricts the conditions which an area board may attach to an "obligatory" consent to conditions requiring the supplier of the gas to provide the board, periodically or on request, with information as to the type and quantity of gas supplied and its use. It provides that anyone aggrieved by any such condition may appeal to the Minister, who may confirm, vary or revoke the condition or impose some other condition which the Area Board could have imposed under this subsection.
Subsection (6) removes from the scope of Section 52 natural gas obtained under a licence issued under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. At present natural gas found in the mainland falls under the provisions of two Acts. The Petroleum (Production) Act gives the Minister—not the gas boards—the power to consent to its supply for industrial purposes, if he is satisfied that the area board concerned has had the opportunity to buy the gas at a reasonable price. But it appears that, in spite of this, the gas board may claim that its own consent for any piped supply of the gas is also necessary under section 52 of the Gas Act. Without suggesting that a gas board would seek to thwart the Minister's decision by refusing a consent in such circumstances, the position is clearly anomalous. The purpose of the subsection is to end this anomaly by removing from the scope of Section 52 of the Gas Act natural gas to which the Petroleum (Production) Act applies. Natural gas obtained under the Continental Shelf Act is already so excluded by Section 9(1) of that Act.
I hope that it is not necessary for us to go over the detailed and rather technical discussion we had in Committee. I gave the Committee the assurance that I would do everything possible, between then and Report, to bring to a successful conclusion the discussions between the industries which have been going on for a considerable time. I hope that the House will feel that the outcome, which is contained in the new Clause, is a fair and proper one and one which satisfies each of the industries that its interests are being looked after by the Government.
I said, and I repeat, that there are issues within these matters which are not completely settled to the liking of everyone. I hope, however, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that I have fulfilled the undertaking which I gave in Committee. I have fulfilled it in the best way I could. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree that the new Clause represents a satisfactory conclusion to a very difficult subject indeed.

Mr. Bernard Braine: The right hon. Gentleman referred, not unkindly, to the Amendment which I moved in Committee seeking clarification of the intentions of the Government about the supply of industrial gases which are used as raw materials in our fast-growing chemical industry. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we had a long and detailed—and, I am afraid, at times somewhat technical—discussion. It was, however, one of my most enjoyable experiences.
I have been a member of many Standing Committees in the 15 years I have served in the House. I cannot recollect belonging to a Committee in which the discussion flowed more easily, or where the atmosphere was more pleasant than in Committee on this Bill. I regarded it as a privilege to be a member of the Committee and I take this opportunity to say that this was largely due to the right hon. Gentleman and to the admirable part played for the Opposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
There was certainly need for clarification of the existing statutory position as set out in the Gas Act, 1948. Section 52 of that Act provides that nobody should supply gas through pipes without the consent of local gas boards. The position had arisen in which some gas boards were claiming that this provision gave them a statutory monopoly in the supply of gases through pipes. This was not the intention of Parliament in 1948 and I do not believe that it was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. In recent years we have seen far reaching, one might say accelerating, technological changes taking place, not only in the gas industry. These changes are to be welcomed and the Bill takes account of them as regards the gas industry.

Changes have been taking place in the chemical industry and doubt on this point was becoming extremely frustrating to that industry and, I suggest, if allowed to develop, could have been damaging too.
The former Government were anxious to find a solution to this problem, probably by amendment of Section 52. Last July, they invited the views of the chemical industry. Many of us were disappointed that the Bill did not deal with the matter initially and the impression was given to the industry—I certainly had the impression—that it would be a long time, possibly three, four or five years, before a satisfactory solution would be found.
The prospect of such a long delay was alarming to our fastest growing and most technologically advanced industry. That was why we pressed the matter in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was careful not to commit himself in Committee and I recognise that that was the right course for him to have taken. However, he was kind enough to say that he would do his best to bring together the spokesman of the gas and chemical industries and his own advisers. He has been as good as his word and the new Clause is the result.
It is clear that the modest arguments which I have advanced in Committee—along with the more cogent arguments adduced by my hon. Friends—about the urgency of the matter have been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers. The new Clause is, therefore, wholly acceptable to me. I can only speak for myself, but I have taken some soundings and I believe that it is also fully acceptable to industry.
Again speaking for myself, while I might harbour some harsh thoughts about the right hon. Gentleman on certain other controversial matters which will be engaging the attention of the House later this week, I take this opportunity to thank him for the way in which he met our point and, perhaps even more, for the speed with which he and his advisers addressed themselves to the problem.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I wish briefly to express my gratitude to the Minister for the expedition with which he and his Department


have got on with the process of confrontation which we urged on him in Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman said, I first raised this point on Second Reading. At that time we were given the impression that it would not be practicable to deal with this matter in the Bill. I think that that was the accepted view on the matter in his Department.
That makes us all the more indebted to him and to his officials for the great energy they brought to the resolving of the arguments between the parties concerned, between the chemical industry and the gas industry and between the chemical industry and the oil industry. If I may say so, it reflects favourably on those responsible that they were able in so short a time to arrive at an agreed solution with as little fuss and trouble as there apparently was.
This solution, of course, does not give everyone everything—that, in the nature of things, would be impossible—but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those with whom I have spoken in the chemical industry count themselves well satisfied with this Clause, and feel that it meets the industry's reasonable requirements in the circumstances they envisage as likely for the future. I would express my own personal gratitude for the efforts that have been made to bring this matter to what most people would regard as a thoroughly satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. John Peyton: I cannot refrain from expressing my profound regret that the benches behind the Minister are not as packed as they are likely to be on Thursday, when we have a very much less agreeable fixture to fulfil. Had they been, hon. Members opposite would have been able to experience an atmosphere of merited cordiality not likely to be repeated later in the week.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps happily for yourself, you do not have the privilege of serving on Standing Committees. Had you served on the Standing Committee on this Bill, you would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) electrify us with his intellectual insight into the problems, and the profound observation that, for him, gas was gas. However, to make that remark and just leave it there would be wrong of me, because I am sure that it will be admitted that the Standing Committee

owed my hon. Friend a great debt of gratitude for the forceful and clear way in which he deployed an argument full of technical problems, the outcome of which is of great significance for an important segment of the industry. I am sure that I take the right hon. Gentleman with me when I tell my hon. Friend how much we appreciate what he then did.
I say without qualification that the Minister has been as good as—indeed, better than—his word. He told the Committee that he would do his best to arrange the confrontation which we then suggested, and I am very conscious of the fact that he pressed forward in a way that exceeded my hopes. We truly appreciate what he has done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to pass on my words of appreciation to those in his Department who have had a great deal of experience in dealing with this intractable problem over the years, and whose labours are now greatly appreciated.
We are extremely glad to know that the Minister will now be able to modify the rather strange and dangerous remark for a Minister to make in a Standing Committee, which was that such a Committee was not competent to make a decision of this order. Perhaps we could agree on the common ground that at least a Standing Committee can play a valuable part, if not in making a decision at least in extracting one from the machine. At any rate, we on this side congratulate ourselves on our part in the operation.
The Minister humbly confessed in Standing Committee that he was unable to look into the inner reaches of a noble Lord's mind—a particularly surprising observation when the noble Lord to whom he referred was none other than Lord Chorley. The observations the right hon. Gentleman had in mind were those made by Lord Chorley during the passage of what became the Gas Act of 1948. Between the Committee stage and now, the Minister has made a very useful exploration into the recesses of Lord Chorley's mind. He has obviously found out what was there, has understood it and has acted on it. We congratulate him on doing that.
I would be more than human if I did not quote back to the right hon. Gentleman the words he used just now, when he


said that he had continued with work that had been going on in the Ministry. Perhaps I might utter, with all the earnestness and vigour I can command, the pious—but, I must say, inadequately founded—hope that the Minister will bear that precept in mind, will attempt to follow it in other contexts, and will not stray from the paths of righteousness into the errors with which he seems to be threatening us from time to time.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I was a little alarmed lest your own personal safety might be put in some jeopardy. Electrocution is not a thing that I, with my great affection and respect for you, Sir, should like to see happen to you. Indeed, had the hon. Gentleman mixed, not metaphors but fuels, you could have been gassed during the progress of this new Clause.
I was glad that the hon. Gentleman referred not only to me, but to those who have to do the work in this case. One has to depend for this kind of confrontation, if that is the right word, on the very able and competent band of officials who, once the undertaking had been given, worked like Trojans to get this result that we have all acclaimed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends for the way in which they have accepted the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ARTIFICIAL STORAGE.)

For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the powers conferred on the Gas Council and the other gas authorities by this Act and the principal Act include power to construct or excavate storage for gas otherwise than in natural porous strata.—[Colonel Lancaster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps with this Clause we might also discuss the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment No. 28—to the Title, in line 6, to leave out "in underground strata".

Colonel Lancaster: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
This new Clause seeks to remedy what I and my hon. Friends consider to be

the serious omission of man-made storage from the Bill. I referred to it very briefly on Second Reading, and elaborated it in greater detail in the Standing Committee. When I first raised the subject, the immediate reaction was that it was unnecsary in this Bill to make provision for man-made storage as existing legislation covered everything affecting it. I questioned that view, particularly as research into man-made storage has taken place during the last 15 or 20 years side by side with research into storage under natural porous conditions, and has no relation to conventional methods of storage—gasholders, and the like.
The whole process of intended storage under natural porous conditions is a new departure in our thinking on the subject, and certainly in the thinking of the Gas Council. I will, therefore, confine my views to lay terms except, perhaps, where geology comes into the picture.
The storage of gas under natural conditions in porous strata is infinitely the cheapest way of storing it, but the economic advantages may in many cases be outweighed by the geographical disadvantages where those circumstances occur. Moreover, the risk in natural storage conditions is fairly widespread. We have heard a good deal about the Winchester project. I believe that the thinking in that case was not wholly comprehensive. The idea was that the risk would be limited to the actual area in proximity to the cap under the porous strata whereas, in fact, the area concerned was very much larger. It comprised six or eight parishes—a large acreage of land, in any part of which a fissure in the strata might have lent itself to some degree of risk and some effect on the surface.
Man-made storage, on the other hand, is a very expensive means of storing gas. It does not provide any particular problem from the aesthetic point of view, but factors affecting water measures undoubtedly come into the consideration of any excavation, whether shallow or deep. Water measures are at varying depths in the soil and, therefore, in a sense, their effect is common to the two means of storage. The risk is the less in the manmade storage, but any storage of gas carries with it some degree of risk. To that degree, therefore, both man-made


storage and storage under natural conditions must require the same sort of legislation if it is to be altogether comprehensive.
I sensed that during my Second Reading speech and in the Standing Committee I got some considerable sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman and from his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary and, in the circumstances, I felt justified in tabling this new Clause. I referred in Committee to the fact that I have some personal interest in this development, because I have been connected with an undertaking which, together with its Continental associates, is possibly the foremost undertaking in Western Europe in regard to primary research, and one that has been carrying out researches into gas storage ever since the war.
I have been very surprised that the Gas Council has not sought the advice of this undertaking; after all, this is a fairly new departure—indeed, geology is a fairly new departure for the Gas Council. This undertaking does a great proportion of the primary research for the National Coal Board, and also for the Geological Survey and for many of our largest undertakings, such as I.C.I. It carries out consulting work in Canada and America, and elsewhere. It knows a great deal about the subject, and it is on its advice that I have developed the case for manmade storage.
It is evident from our prior discussion that the progress of the Bill has gone on in the friendliest circumstances, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we set out to do no more than improve this Measure where we could. I think that any Minister of Power would wish to be in a position, when the Gas Council puts forward a proposition about storage, to assess whether the particular proposition had been looked at in all its aspects. He would wish to consider whether making use of natural conditions was the stronger case, or whether, in the particular circumstances, man-made storage was more likely to be in the national interest.
What one has to recognise is that manmade storage has the great advantage of being put down at the most propitious place. Were it not otherwise, of course, the cost would be too great. But having put it down at the most propitious place

it may well be that the subsequent cost of pipes and the like are very much less than those required from storage under natural circumstances, which, as I say, may be geologically of advantage, but geographically of considerable disadvantage.
This may require not only great lengths of pipe but a boosting of the gas and the like with the end cost being the greater of the two. We would like the Minister to be in a position to assess the benefits of the one against the other whenever a proposition comes up.
It may well be that in 60 or 70 per cent. of the cases natural gas storage will show such evident advantages as to be the right choice, but, likewise, there may be 30 per cent. or so cases where manmade storage is, in all the circumstances, the correct choice.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Braine: I rise more in the spirit of inquiry than anything else. The emphasis of the Bill, of course, is on natural storage of gas in porous strata. My hon. Friend has referred to manmade cavities for the storage of gas. In some ways, I think it a great pity that this point was not considered at an earlier stage of the Bill. There are, of course, other means, as I understand, of ensuring storage, than those mentioned by my hon. Friend which are not covered by the Bill, namely, disused mineral works, such as salt mines which, I am advised, form satisfactory reservoirs for those purposes.
In fact, I believe that the chemical industry already utilises cavities of this kind for the storage of gases and would like to extend the practice still further. In a sense it is a criticism of the Bill that too little thought seems to have been given to this aspect of the problem. We are, after all, in a sphere of very rapid technological change. The right hon. Gentleman has shown tremendous flexibility so far in approaching these problems and I hope that he will not relax in this regard.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can assure me that nothing will be done to impede, but that everything will be done to encourage, private industry to utilise these other methods of storage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris): I have been invited to be flexible in considering this Amendment, but I am afraid I must, for rather obvious reasons, most of which I have set out, disappoint hon. Members on the other side of the House. This new Clause has been moved as a declaratory Clause for the avoidance of doubt. In Committee we were grateful for the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), but I would point out again that this Clause is unnecessary. First, there are adequate powers for the gas boards to carry out such activities under Section 1 of the Gas Act, 1948, and the gas council will have the powers under Clause 1 and Clause 29, read together of the Bill.
All man-made storage like this can be carried out without provisions in this Bill. There is the man-made structure which the Northern Gas Board now has at Billingham. We have no wish to stop the industry from proceeding along such lines as the development of other structures like the porous strata we have been talking about. We wish to give it scope to develop in whatever manner it thinks fit. When the Minister considers proposals made to him from time to time he will, of course, have the benefit of the best possible advice to enable him to decide along which lines development should take place.
The object of the Clause is to place these man-made structures under the umbrella of the Minister, but I fear that this new Clause will not do that. It simply declares that if anyone is in doubt whether gas authorities have powers under the Bill and the Act to engage in the construction or excavation of storages other than in natural strata, they may set their minds at rest, because the powers are there.
All that this Clause will do is to declare what I submit is an existing state of affairs. If the Clause were accepted it would give to the Gas Council and the gas boards the power to acquire land compulsorily for man-made storage. But they already have those powers and they are not necessary. To give powers in this Bill would mean that the gas authority would be able to acquire rights to store gas on other people's land with-

out buying the surface. That would be the effect of this kind of intervention.
We are, after all, dealing with an entirely different kind of structure when we are discussing man-made storage compared with what is essentially a new development in this country, the injection of gas into the porous strata of the soil. Confining my remarks solely to the powers that do exist for regulating the injection of gas into the natural strata of the soil—they are there and operate now. First, Section 72 of the Water Resources Act obliges the gas authority to obtain the consent of the river authority before injecting gas or any other substance which is noxious, poisonous or polluting. If the storage is an excavation from the surface the ordinary sanctions under the Water Act, 1945 and enactments by which it is an offence to allow gas to foul water will apply. In either case the gas authority will be liable to be sued for nuisance for any pollution of water. There are, in addition, other adequate safeguards with regard to the storage of liquid methane under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, as applied by Statutory Instrument No. 859 of 1957.
Having regard to those observations, I ask the House to reject the Clause. I sympathise with the objects of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not accept the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) that too little thought has been given in the Bill to this aspect. I repeat what I said in Committee and what I have said this afternoon, that the powers are there, and are adequate to deal with the problem. In the Bill we are dealing solely with legislation which is badly needed to control and supervise what is essentially a new development in this country.

Mr. Peyton: The Minister has received the thanks of this side of the House, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), to an extent which he personally did not deserve. I am sure that the Minister had other very important commitments, some of which he would have done well to have avoided. Undoubtedly, it was the Parliamentary Secretary who bore the main burden of getting the Bill through Standing Committee. With one or two very minor exceptions, which I am sure


he himself deeply regretted, the Parliamentary Secretary showed himself to be most courteous and co-operative. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has raised an important point. Even though in the short-term the argument which has been adduced by the Parliamentary Secretary may be correct and justified in a narrow sense, I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to put this problem on one side and say that it has been dealt with satisfactorily and answered in full.
My hon. and gallant Friend has raised an important point about the balance of advantage between the two methods of storage—that in underground natural porous strata and that in some man-made cavity. There may well be developments in the latter. Indeed, I believe that some are now taking place. It may well be that it will become a reasonable and useful proposition to store larger and larger quantities in such cavities, and such storage in that case might well raise the sort of problems which have been dealt with in the Bill in regard to storage in natural strata.
Though the Parliamentary Secretary may be justified in saying that it is not now necessary to add to the powers enjoyed by the gas industry, I very much hope that the Government will continue to watch for any movement in the balance of advantage and make quite certain that the legislation on this matter is kept up to date. I want to make it clear that we on this side would certainly not approve of any extension of storage monopoly in regard to man-made cavities. Not all Governments have realised it in the past, but it is the responsibility of Governments to facilitate the operation of industry and at the same time to give the necessary measure of protection to the public and to the individual citizen.
I hope that before we leave the Clause the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to give the simple undertaking that he and his Department will not close their minds to any developments which may take place in the future as to man-made storages and will, if necessary, not hesitate to bring forward the necessary legislation.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: Naturally, the Department will at all times watch these developments. My right hon. Friend will look at the balance of advantage, where-ever it lies, whether with man-made storages or with storage in the natural strata. My right hon. Friend has the power, when he looks at the development programmes of the gas industry, to authorise its development along certain lines. He has adequate powers to supervise the development that the industry suggests from time to time.
All I am saying is, first, that no legislation, as we now see the position, is required. Secondly, legislation would not necessarily achieve the object of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). Thirdly, legislation is now adequate to meet the present needs of the industry, as I proved by the example I gave of the development which has taken place in the past in the Northern Gas Board's area.

Colonel Lancaster: In view of the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary, and of his explanation of the situation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3.—(RATING OF GAS COUNCIL AND OTHER GAS AUTHORITIES.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 20, after "Board" to insert "(a)".
May I suggest that we discuss, with this Amendment, Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I have no objection, if neither side of the House has.

Mr. Mellish: The three Amendments are linked. They have one object. These Amendments cure a small defect in Clause 3, and make consequential changes in the drafting of the Scottish applications in subsection (9). The Amendment of substance is Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 25. Most of Clause 3 is designed to ensure that the gas industry pays the same amount of rates when the Gas Council makes or supplies


gas at any place in Great Britain as it would pay if the gas had, instead, been made or supplied by the local area gas board.
Clause 3(2) is concerned with gas supplied by the Council to consumers at any place in Great Britain. It provides for such gas to count in the annual adjustment of the local board's rateable value as if the gas had, in fact, been supplied by the board. It should, but at present does not, provide for this gas also to count in the apportionment of the adjusted total rateable value between different rating authorities within the board's area.
This omission should be put right. Otherwise, if the Council should supply a quantity of gas in any rating area, there will be no rate benefit to that area but, instead, an undeserved increase in the rate benefit gained by other rating authorities within the board's area. Therefore, the necessary correction for England and Wales is made by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Amendment No. 4 introduces the corresponding Scottish references and will lead to the consequential tidying up of subsection (9) by which the Clause is applied to Scotland.

Mr. Peyton: I think that we can deal with this matter very briefly. I only wish to call attention to the virtue and the strength which have habitually been shown by the Opposition in the passage of the Bill and to congratulate ourselves on the way we have refrained from following the abominable example set in previous Parliaments by previous Oppositions. Whenever a Scottish matter was raised, there was an agonised squeal, "Why have we not got a Scottish Minister to deal with it?" It must be taken as evidence of our broad-mindedness and, indeed, of our regard for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that we do not raise that type of fatuous point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little careful as to the width, breadth and significance of his remarks.

Mr. Braine: I rise to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether, since I have a rating point to raise, I could conveniently raise it on these Amendments, or whether the rules

of order permit me to discuss it on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not selected and there is no opportunity at this stage of a Bill to discuss the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I must, therefore, disappoint the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Farther Amendments made: In line 25, after "enactment", insert:
and
(b) for the purposes of paragraph 4(3) of that Schedule (which provides for apportioning that total among rating areas and for ascertaining the proportion to be allocated to each area) and the corresponding Scottish enactment".

In page 4, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 5 and insert:

(a) section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962 is the Scottish enactment corresponding to section 11 of the Local Government Act 1958 and paragraph (a) of the said section 3 is the Scottish enactment corresponding to subsections (2) and (3) of the said section 11;
(b) Schedule 4 to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 is the Scottish enactment corresponding to Schedule 3 to the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 and paragraphs 5 and 11 of the said Schedule 4 are the Scottish enactments corresponding respectively to paragraphs 4(3) and 12 of the said Schedule 3.—[Mr. Mellish.]

Clause 4.—(STORAGE AUTHORISATION ORDERS.)

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, to leave out "in the opinion of the Minister".
The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that we had a certain amount of discussion in Committee on what gases were suitable for this kind of storage. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the exercise of your discretion in selecting an Amendment of which I recognise that not long notice was given.
The position of the previous Administration was that the use of these storages should be limited to natural gas, which was, of course, not poisonous. The Bill as now before the House provides that any gas can be stored there which the Minister believes to be suitable. It is right that we should ask the Government at least to state the criteria upon which the Minister will exercise this very wide


discretion. In view of the change which the Government wrote into the Bill before introducing it, I take it that they are against limiting it to natural gas. Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to say whether the Government will consider limiting the use of these storages either to non-toxic gas, or, alternatively, to gases which do not have anything above a permitted maximum of carbon monoxide content?
This is an important point. The Government should not run away with it and say, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, that Ministers do not act entirely in ignorance. This is not the kind of assurance with which public opinion is entirely happy. There is a profound conviction among some sections of the public that Governments, and in particular this Government, act frequently in ignorance. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion the Parliamentary Secretary will go a little further than he felt able to go in Committee and will at least give the House some indication of the criteria which the Minister will have in his mind when he exercises this very wide discretion.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has pointed out, a similar Amendment was dealt with at some length in Standing Committee. It was suggested there that it might be useful for the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to make sure that there was available for everybody an opportunity to find out what gases the gas authorities had in mind for underground storage.
On that occasion it was suggested, and the Parliamentary Secretary acquiesced in the idea, that at some stage local authorities would be able to explain to people in areas where storage was likely to take place the sort of gases which might be involved in this storage. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, of the concern felt by people in areas where this sort of storage might take place and their fears that there may be gases stored in their vicinity about which they would not be entirely happy. Can the hon. Gentleman give us some assurance on this point?

Mr. John Morris: I am glad to have this opportunity to refer to the gases which can be considered suitable for

storage underground, but, first, I should like to stress, as I did in Committee, that the Minister is bound by the terms of Clause 4(1) to authorise underground storage in natural porous strata of only
such kinds of gas (including natural gas) as, having regard to the safety of the public and the need to protect water resources, are, in the opinion of the Minister, suitable for such storage.
He therefore would not be free to authorise the storage of gas which would pollute water in natural porous strata or of a toxic gas in circumstances where there was a risk of its escaping and endangering public safety.
There could be circumstances where it was entirely safe to store toxic gas and, therefore, the Bill does not forbid this, although it seems academic in the light of technical developments in gas making. Perhaps I might round off the discussion of the kinds of gases for which underground storage authorisation might be given by saying that there are some gases, Algerian natural gas being the outstanding example, which would normally be suitable to store underground in almost all circumstances because they are non-toxic and would not contaminate the water. Most natural gases would come into this category, but there are some natural gases which would require the removal of sulphur gases before storage, as is done already in France.
I took the opportunity over the weekend of visiting some of these structures. Near Paris there are two very well-known ones. One has been in use since 1956 and in that one manufactured gas is stored. In the other one, at St. Illiers, which has been in use for the last three weeks, the French have begun to inject gas, and they are using Algerian gas. I have spoken to one or two people who have had wide experience of this in France. There are also many such storages in the United States.
I give the House the assurance given to me about experience in France by the President of Gaz de France, M. le Guellec, that no difficulty has been experienced about public safety. When hon. Members look at these matters they should be aware, as I am sure they are, that we are doing in this country only what other countries have been doing for many years. It is a novelty only in our own country.
As I said, most natural gases are suitable though some of these might require the removal of sulphur. With modern gas making processes, gases can be manufactured with characteristics similar to those of natural gas and these may prove just as suitable for underground storage. It is these gases, natural or manufactured, which would normally he considered suitable for underground storage, and it is for the storage of such gases that the powers under the Bill are primarily intended. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, it is these gases which the industry plans to store.
5.0 p.m.
We should approach the Bill in this light. Storage of a toxic gas or one which would pollute water could be considered suitable only in exceptional circumstances, for example, where the storage was remote from human habitation and usable water. While this would be the exception, the Government do not wish to rule it out altogether and would not want to put a figure on a maximum carbon monoxide content of gas before it could be regarded as suitable for storage. Between a gas which contains no carbon monoxide and one which is highly toxic, there are many gradations, and the gradation which might be acceptable in any particular case would depend on the circumstances in which the gas was to he stored.
At the end of the day, we come back to this. Whatever gas the industry wishes to store underground, the Minister will need to satisfy himself that it is or can be made suitable for storage in the circumstances proposed without danger to the public or to water resources. Otherwise, he would not be entitled to give an authorisation to the gas authority.

Mr. Peyton: With the leave of the House, may I add a few words? I feel some concern when the Parliamentary Secretary says, as he did just now, that there could be circumstances in which it was entirely safe to store a toxic gas. I do not concede this. I have great doubts about it. As I understand, it is virtually inconceivable that water would not be present in a storage. This being so, it is certain that the water would be affected by the storage of a toxic gas.
The Parliamentary Secretary said, quite rightly, that the use of toxic gas in this country will diminish, that not only do the new processes produce non-toxic gas but the carbon monoxide content of the other gases is steadily being reduced. I urge the hon. Gentleman to recognise that this is an exceedingly important point. The Bill is soon to go to another place, and I hope that he will have further thoughts on the matter. If the toxic content of gas is to be reduced, this is a very strong reason for saying at this stage that in no circumstances will the Minister permit a gas with more than a certain content of carbon monoxide to be stored in the strata with which we are here concerned.
I press the hon. Gentleman to reconsider it. I am not satisfied that it is reasonable for a Minister to say at that Box that he is satisfied that there could be circumstances in which it was entirely safe to store a toxic gas.

Mr. John Morris: By leave of the House, may I speak again, and ask the hon. Gentleman to put this matter in its proper perspective? The intention is to store natural gas. That is the strongest and most obvious candidate for this kind of storage. It is the candidate in the recent developments in other countries. I referred to the recent developments which I saw yesterday in St. Illiers. But there might be circumstances in which the Minister, having regard to his obligations under Clause 4(1) for the safety of the public, on the best possible advice tendered to him and after all the elaborate statutory precautions and inquiries had been gone through, might come to the conclusion that it would be safe to store either manufactured gas or gas which had some degree of toxicity. But, with respect, this should be put in proper perspective.
The obvious candidate is natural gas. But on the other hand the degree of toxicity of manufactured gas, in this country, is rapidly becoming less year by year, as hon. Members know. All I am saying is that, at the end of the day, this matter must be left to the opinion of the Minister of Power, whoever he may be. He is ultimately answerable to Parliament for his decision. I ask the House to leave the matter open.


I am deeply aware of all the considerations so eloquently advanced by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but I am sure that he will bear in mind the most natural and probable outcome of developments as they are now envisaged by the gas authorities.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 29, to leave out from "proceedings" to the end of line 30.
We now return to an Amendment which was dealt with at some length in Committee, but which was not, in the interests of speed, pressed too hard because the Parliamentary Secretary then said—I have his words here—that he was prepared to give any assurances that hon. Members might require.
The Amendment relates to that part of subsection (2) which is designed to make clear that the giving of storage authorisation orders does not protect the gas authority from its legal duties to third parties. Like much else of the Clause, it is designed to make clear to the general public and those who are likely to be affected by storage authorisation orders that they are fully covered in law for any loss or damage they may suffer.
The closing words of the subsection, which we propose should be left out, are particularly unhappy inasmuch as they qualify the liability of the gas authority by reference to
any nuisance caused by them.
We are concerned about the word "nuisance". In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who is something of an expert on legal matters, pointed out that nuisance is a term hard to define, and he quoted from Halsbury's Laws of England, page 126,
The term 'nuisance' as used in law is not capable of exact definition.
Our Amendment is directed to this problem.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this form of words could be found in other Acts and that it was suitable for incorporation here. But Clauses 14 and 4 of the Bill are in conflict. Clause 14 imposes absolute liability on the gas authority, that

the gas authority shall be absolutely liable in civil proceedings in respect of damage caused by gas …
and we read that damage is to be construed as meaning
loss of life, personal injury and damage to property.
As I say, there seems to be a conflict between Clauses 4 and 14. On the one hand, the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that Clause 4(2) in no way restricts the provisions of Clause 14 which imposes absolute liability, but, on the other, we have the limiting reference to nuisance in the subsection. If no restriction is intended, why are these words necessary? What is the point of saying
for any nuisance caused by them"?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter. We did not press it in Committee for the reason I have given, but we remain very unhappy about it because this appears to be a limiting form of words. At a time when we are introducing important legislation dealing with a completely new branch of activity for the gas authorities and when there is some concern in various parts of the country, the Government would be well advised to do everything possible to ensure that forms of words are written into the Bill to make clear to the general public that the liability of the gas authorities is in no way intended to be limited.

Mr. John Morris: We had a long and interesting discussion on this matter in Committee, and, unless the House wishes, I shall not go over all the argument again. This kind of provision is common form in other enactments. It is to be found in paragraph 42 of the Third Schedule to the Gas Act, 1948. It has a precedent as far back as Section 81 of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, which was applied by Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 1947.
In the light of those matters and the antiquity of the precedent, perhaps should tell the House the purpose of having such a provision here. I told the Committee on several occasions that Clause 14 imposes absolute liability at law on the gas authority, and the reason for having this added provision in Clause 4(2) is not to create any conflict with Clause 14 but merely to make assurance doubly sure about nuisance.
I take the point of the quotation by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) from Halsbury on the difficulty of definition of nuisance, but I assure the House that the purpose of Clause 4(2) is to provide that, in the unlikely event of an action being brought against a gas authority at common law, the gas authority will not be able to plead that, by reason of the statutory authority conferred by the storage authorisation order, it has statutory authority to commit the nuisance complained of.
Even though absolute liability is imposed by Clause 14 on the gas authority, it does not remove anyone's right to sue the gas authority at common law. In the remote possibility of someone doing so, it is necessary to ensure that the gas authority could not, in those unlikely circumstances, if an action in nuisance were brought against it, rely upon any statutory authority conferred upon it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care, and it is much the same as was deployed in Committee, but the difficulty which we feel about it is this: why is it thought right to limit the exclusion to cases of nuisance? There could be many other causes of action which did not sound in nuisance, actions in trespass, assault or negligence, all of which are outside the scope of nuisance, yet they would be outside the scope of the subsection because of the final limiting words. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Morris: I will certainly take the point made by the hon. Member about why this should be limited to nuisance. I would have come to that as my next point, even if it had not been raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West. I hope that I have managed to persuade hon. Members that there is no conflict between Clause 4 and Clause 14. The purpose is rather to make assurance doubly certain and that in the remote possibility of any person suing a gas authority in nuisance, the gas authority cannot set up a defence that it has statutory authority for committing the act. There is no conflict here whatever.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) asked the reason for the limitation to nuisance only.

Our views are that the Clause should be limited to nuisance and not to, say, trespass or negligence, because under the existing law the defence of statutory authority which the subsection excludes concerning nuisance could not in any event be pleaded for trespass or for negligence. That is obvious. As regards trespass, express statutory authority would be needed for any person, including the gas authority, to be permitted to commit a trespass against another person or another person's land. That removes the issue of trespass.
As to negligence, even if the Statute permits a person or an authority to do a certain act, it permits him to do it only provided that he does not do it negligently. Statutory authority in itself is no excuse for a person to commit negligence. There is, I am sure, no need for me to labour the point. That deals with the two aspects of the question which the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford put eloquently and reasonably in Committee about why the Clause should be limited to nuisance. I hope that I have persuaded the House on this aspect.
Perhaps I may now properly deal with some of the other issues that were raised in Committee. The hon. Member mentioned the case of Rylands v. Fletcher and why we should not deal specifically with the kind of case that he advanced. It is possible that it could arise in these circumstances. The hon. Member told us that Rylands v. Fletcher is not strictly a part of the law of nuisance and, again, he quoted eminent authorities.
Subsegtion (2) of the Clause states in terms:
and shall not authorise the disregard by any gas authority of any enactment or rule of law".
I am advised that the words "or rule of law" in this context include a reference to Rylands v. Fletcher and, therefore, the subsection would apply to cases falling within that rule as well as to actions for nuisance. There is some conflict, on which I need not detain the House, about how far the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher applies in this kind of case.
At the end of the day, Clause 14 is far wider. It imposes absolute liability. If any person in a remote contingency were to bring an action in nuisance, it would be covered by subsection (2). If he were to take an action, which, again,


is a remote contingency having regard to the variety of defences that could be raised in an action under Rylands v. Fletcher, that is covered by the Clause.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I have watched this point carefully since the introduction of the Bill in the former Parliament and I gather from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the major damage, destruction and injurious affection to property and people comes within Clause 14 and that minor matters which might not come within that Clause are dealt with under Clause 4 and subsection (2). If I am correct in that assumption, does the Parliamentary Secretary have in mind the Government's view of the sort of thing for which the Clause and the subsection might be applicable in the way of nuisance?

Mr. Morris: Obviously, there is a limit to how far I can assist the hon. Member in hypothetical cases. Clause 14 imposes absolute liability upon a gas authority. That is a heavy and onerous responsibility. As I have said both today and earlier in our proceedings, the insertion of a Clause like Clause 14 in the Bill does not remove from a person his right to sue at common law. Were he so to do in nuisance, which in my submission is a remote contingency, the gas authority would not in those circumstances be able to rely upon a defence that the statute permits it so to do. That is the sole and simple object of part of the Clause which is found in similar statutes.

Mr. Peyton: It is not my intention to press the Amendment or to spend much further time upon it. I agree entirely with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend. The Parliamentary Secretary has not justified the inclusion of these words. I am sorry that he has not agreed to their deletion. I appreciate that the force behind them is the argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee that if these words were not included, the wording would be different from that which is used in other Statutes.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in that respect, because once a form of words is used in one Statute it continues to be re-echoed down the

ages in Statute after Statute, whether it is necessary or not. I know that the hon. Gentleman is bearing a burden in which he is not alone, but I am sorry that he has not been able to convince me and I do not think that he has convinced this side of the House.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 34, to leave out "or" and to insert "and".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time, Amendment No. 8, in line 34, leave out "as the case may be".

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The two Amendments, which it would be convenient to take together, arise from a debate in Committee. Two alternative ways were discovered of reading subsection (3) of the Clause and on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary kindly undertook to check whether there was any possibility that the words could be read in the way that some of my hon. Friends read them rather than as he read them, because there is a considerable difference between the two interpretations.
As I see the words, they could mean that the Minister or the gas authority, whichever of the two felt inclined to do so, should have regard to safety. According to the Parliamentary Secretary's version, the words could mean that the gas authority should have regard to safety during the making of a storage authorisation order and that the Minister must have regard to it during the consideration of the gas authority's proposals.
I still feel slightly unconvinced by the Parliamentary Secretary's interpretation. When a proposal is submitted, there will surely be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between Millbank and Grosvenor Place. The two separate parties will not stand aloof and refuse to see or to speak to each other. The gas authority will be consulting the Minister when it formulates a proposal and when the Minister is considering the proposal he will, no doubt, be asking the gas authority about this, that or the other. For all these reasons, there must be a great traffic


between the Ministry and the gas authority and it is natural that they should both, at all stages, have the safety issue firmly in mind. To leave the words as they appear in the Bill suggests that only one or other of them is to have concern for safety.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what his further thinking on the subject has led him to conclude. If we on this side can place the interpretation which I have suggested on the words in the subsection, is it not likely that people outside this House who live in areas where a gas storage authorisation order might be made would look at the Statute and come to the same conclusion as ourselves? It would be no sacrifice for the Government to accept the Amendment, because the importance of safety in this matter cannot be overemphasised.
I am not a lawyer, but I feel that the Amendment would remove a great deal of anxiety in the public mind. Even if the words may not be strictly in accordance with lawyers' requirements, that they should be strictly satisfactory to this side of the House and to the public at large is surely more important.

Mr. John Morris: I am glad to have this opportunity of giving the fruits of my re-examination of the problem. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) posed an interesting point towards the end of his remarks when he suggested that if he and his hon. Friends placed a certain interpretation upon the Clause, people elsewhere might reach a similar interpretation. I should not like to follow that analogy too far, because the interpretation which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends sometimes place upon certain Clauses is not always reflected in the interpretations that people elsewhere place upon statutes and legislation.
The Minister and the gas authority are to have different functions at different stages. I repeat unashamedly that this kind of subsection is common form with other Statutes. I have already said that it provides the proper safeguards that the circumstances require. There is no ambiguity.
As promised, I have examined the Clause and its drafting and have taken advice upon it. On the best possible

advice, I am able to confirm that there is no ambiguity about the phrase
the gas authority or the Minister, as the case may be".
It puts the gas authority and the Minister under a duty to have regard to the safety of the public and the protection of water resources. The gas authority is to have regard to this in the formation of any proposals for the making of a storage authorisation order, the gas authority's functions in the matter being to make such proposals.
The Minister is to have regard to this in the consideration of any such proposals, his function in the matter being to take the gas authority's proposals into consideration. Thus each of them, the gas authority in the initial stage and the Minister in the later stage, is given a duty in respect of its or his own function.
I would have thought that this was eminently sensible and that there was no conflict and no ambiguity. Each is given its own function and its own duty.

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that we gave the Parliamentary Secretary the chance to redeem his pledge to look at this matter again. His answer has been perfectly satisfactory and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7.—(COMPENSATION FOR GENERAL EFFECT OF STORAGE AUTHORISATION ORDER.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Lee: I beg to move, Amendment No. 9, in page 10, line 21, after "as", to insert "directly".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We now come to the three Amendments concerned with the word "directly", and I think that it would be convenient to the House if, together with Amendment No. 9, we discussed Amendments No. 10 and No. 11.

Mr. Lee: In Committee, there was a slight misunderstanding—

Mr. Peyton: Not at all.

Mr. Lee: Oh, yes. There was a slight misunderstanding in Committee which resulted in a Government defeat. It was a misunderstanding about pairing, of


which you may or may not have heard, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and which takes place from time to time. It was complicated by the requirement of one of my hon. Friends, who had to leave the Committee rather hurriedly.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am fascinated, but this is completely out of order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has raised all this. He has made allegations about pairs, and so on, which are not normally discussed on the Floor of the House, allegations to which I shall have no opportunity of replying. I am trying to explain the embarrassment which I feel at not being able to refer to the last comment which the right hon. Gentleman made quite illegitimately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will deal with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) when he speaks, but I think I can say that I shall see that he is given an opportunity of remaining out of order for as long as the right hon. Gentleman has been.

Mr. Lee: I can promise the hon. Gentleman a pair the next time he asks for one.
The reasons for retaining "directly" in Clause 7 were argued in Committee, but I will repeat some of them. Clause 7 provides a means for landowners in the storage area to get compensation for depreciation in the value of their interests which may occur when the storage is authorised. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that instead of having to wait until the gas authority acquired storage rights under their land, which might be a very protracted period, this provision would enable owners to claim compensation for any injurious affection when the storage is authorised.
Compensation for injurious affection ought to be assessed on the same principles as compensation for injurious affection under the Lands Clauses Acts as compensation under the Clause to some extent would be an advance instalment of compensation under those Acts and in any case analagous to it. The rule

which the courts apply in cases of compensation for injurious affection is that the damage must flow directly from the acquisition of the land in question.
Since compensation under Clause 7 is either a foretaste of or similar to compensation for the acquisition of the right to store gas, it is our view that it follows that any depreciation for which compensation is claimed under Clause 7 should be directly attributable to the making of the storage authorisation order and that the Clause should not extend the scope of the existing law on compensation.
There are other reasons for our considering it necessary to restore the word "directly" in Clause 7. The first is the presence of "directly" in Clauses 8 and 9.

Mr. Peyton: It would shorten proceedings considerably if the right hon. Gentleman wants it this way, for if he wants the Bill balanced, either the "directly" which has been left out should be restored, or the other two should be left out. That is a very reasonable alternative. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to propose that, we would be very happy to leave out the other two "directlys".

Mr. Lee: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be extremely helpful, but what I was proposing was that we should put back this "directly". We can discuss later whether the House should accept the solution which he has now suggested.
I was saying that we considered it necessary to restore "directly" in Clause 7 because of its presence in Clauses 8 and 9. Although those Clauses are concerned with compensation for a different cause, namely, the loss or damage which may result if the Minister refuses his consent to controlled operations, or if he attaches conditions to his consent, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have argued that all three Clauses should be consistent and have suggested Amendments with that purpose in view.
As will be shown when those Amendments are discussed, the use of "directly" in these Clauses follows well-established precedents and was accepted as right by the previous Government, of which the hon. Member for Yeovil was a


member. It would, therefore, be inconsistent with these precedents not to include "directly" in Clauses 8 and 9. However, if the word were to be omitted from Clause 7, that would raise the suspicion that a difference was intended. We intend no difference. Our view is that Clause 7 and the other two Clauses should say what is meant, which is that the depreciation, loss or damage should flow directly from the order or decision in question.
I believe that this is a sensible thing to do and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, because of the reasons which I have advanced, it would be wrong for us to leave the position as the Committee left it. I hope that now that they have had some fun and games, the Opposition will agree to the Amendments.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I can assuredly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want on all three occasions the wording to be the same. This would seem to be essential. Something must, therefore, be done at this stage. The Committee decided that the word "directly" should be eliminated from Clause 7, but failed to decide that it should be eliminated from the other two Clauses.
The intention of Clause 7 has been succinctly put by the right hon. Gentleman. Broadly, it is to provide for compensation to be paid to land owners during that period between the making of a storage authorisation order and the acquisition of storage rights by the gas authority. The compensation covers any depreciation in the value of his land.
It seems to me that the use of the word "directly" must limit the right to claim compensation, and this is really the basis of our objection. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary supported the inclusion of the word broadly on three grounds which have been echoed by the Minister this afternoon. He conceded that it was probable that the courts would construe the Clause, even if the word "directly" was not in it, in the same way as if it were. That is to say, the word "directly" would probably not add anything to the meaning of the Clause.
The hon. Gentleman went on to argue that there was some degree of un-

certainty about the matter, and that to avoid unnecessary litigation the uncertainty should be removed by including the word "directly". He argued that it was the intention of the Government that compensation should be paid only when the damage flowed directly from the Minister's decision, or, to use the words of the Clause,
when the depreciation is attributable to the Minister's decision".
The hon. Gentleman supported the inclusion of the word "directly", and said that this was the same as in the provisions for compensation governing injurious affection under the Land Consolidation Acts, and he also mentioned the position under contract and tort. Our view is that either the word is unnecessary, that it adds nothing to the meaning of the Clause, that it is completely otiose and surplus verbiage, without which we would do very much better, or, if it means anything at all, it is restrictive. It limits the right to compensation. It limits the right of a claimant who finds himself in a position to claim compensation for depreciation attributable to the Minister's decision.
One has to have regard to the effect that the word will have on a judge. It will suggest to him that he should take into account only depreciation which is directly attributable, and he should therefore eliminate from any question of compensation depreciation which is indirectly attributable. He cannot on any account take notice of depreciation which is not attributable to the Minister's decision, and clearly we would regard that as right. Is it right, however, that there should be any form of depreciation of the value of land which, ex hypothesi, is attributable to the Minister's decision, but which must be left out of account? We submit that this cannot be right.
With regard to compensation for injurious affection under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, I would assume that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Section 63 of the 1845 Act. It is a very long section, and I shall not read it all, but it may interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that nowhere in that Section does the word "directly" appear. It was not regarded as necessary, and it has not been regarded as necessary to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman wants to achieve.
After saying what the compensation should be, it says that
also the damage, if any, to be sustained by the owner of the lands by reason of the severing of the lands taken from the other lands of such owner, or otherwise injuriously affecting such other lands by the exercise of the powers …
There is no suggestion that the damage must flow "directly" from the exercise of the compulsory purchase rights. I submit that so far from assisting the right hon. Gentleman's case, the example which he and his hon. Friend have chosen assists our case. The word "directly" is unnecessary, and adds nothing.
I also submit that the examples from contract and tort are not helpful. In relation to the law of tort—and we had some argument about this in Committee—one thinks of the effect of the re Polemis case and the Wagon Mound case. If one examines the authorities, one sees that the word has an extending effect. In the re Polemis case the defendant was made liable for the damage, whether it was foreseen or not, provided that it flowed directly from the original cause. Therefore, in that case it is an entirely topsy turvy argument and is of no assistance.
5.45 p.m.
In contrast, the law is to be found in the cases of Hadley v. Baxendale and Victoria Laundry v. Newman. There the whole emphasis is on predictability, what could be reasonably foreseen as flowing from the breach of the contract, or what the parties foresaw. When one is dealing with a case of this sort, foreseeability is hardly a suitable test.
I submit that there is no good reason for the inclusion of the word "directly" in this clause. It imposes too onerous a burden on the claimant. If it means anything at all, it would limit his right to compensation and it could deprive him of compensation for damage which, ex hypothesi, is none the less attributable to the Minister's decision.
It cannot be the intention of the Government in dealing with this important new matter to which reference has already been made, that they should do anything to add to public disquiet, or in any way limit the rights of those who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the powers under the Bill when it becomes an Act. I submit that it is better to leave out

the word in all three places, and in each case to leave the right to compensation to be for the depreciation, or loss or damage, or whatever it may be, which is attributable to the Minister's decision. The bare words are sufficient.

Dr. Bennett: As one who was not involved in the Committee stage of the Bill, and who is not a lawyer, I find the argument advanced by my hon. Friends overwhelmingly positive. It seems quite absurd that if the Minister is liable he should be able to get away with it because he could not he proved to be directly liable.
That seems to be the gist of the argument, and it would appear that the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to put the word "directly" back into the Bill is to enable him to evade some of the responsibility for which he is properly to be held liable, and to add to the duty and the difficulties of the person who has been injuriously affected, by making him prove direct liability, as opposed to any indirect liability which may be self-evident.
On the strength of that, I would have thought that it was vital that this word "directly" should not exist in the Clause, and I would support my hon. Friends in resisting it.

Mr. Peyton: Never in my recollection have I seen the right hon. Gentleman looking so unhappy and so miserable as he was when deploying the meagre argument to which he treated the House. Whether he was oppressed by the lack of merit in his argument, or by the presence on his mind and conscience of some other darker things about which we shall hear more later, I do not know.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are we allowed to refer to matters which are not within the scope of the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not the slightest idea what dark things the hon. Member is referring to at the moment. I think, however, that he is dealing with the argument advanced by the right hon. Member.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I feel sure that you would not question my right to avail myself of any argument with which the Minister presented me,


and I was merely commenting on the obvious unhappiness with which he deployed what I have already described as his meagre argument. I do not propose to press the matter any further.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member had been out of order I would have called him to order.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
There is one important point which I should like to mention before I come to the Amendment. One of those rare misprints crept in at column 284 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. The word "asinine" was spelt with two "s's". I have always understood that it was spelt with one, and that to spell it with two does not necessarily add to its weight. It may be thought an unimportant point, but as "asinine" will clearly be a word to which my right hon. and hon. Friends will frequently need to resort, in charity, in describing the antics of the Government, I hope that we can be assured that the spelling of this important word will be correct in future.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has now been out of order long enough. Honours are even between both sides.

Mr. Peyton: I would not dream of contesting your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who played a most distinguished part in our proceedings in Committee, has deployed a powerful case. There is nothing in the Minister's argument to weaken what my hon. Friend has said. I do not want to repeat the arguments which my hon. Friend has adduced, nor do I want to go at length into the arguments raised in Committee. It would be very wrong of me to attempt, at this stage, to embark upon a lecture on the tempting subject of the remoteness of damage.
I will content myself with quoting the Parliamentary Secretary, who, in Committee, said:
Looking very closely at the word 'directly' in this Clause. I am advised that the courts would probably apply the same rule to Clause 7 even if the word 'directly' were omitted."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Standing Committee B, 25th March, 1965; c. 283–4.]

He repeated those words shortly afterwards to give them further weight. The Government cannot have it both ways.

Mr. John Morris: Having been so kind as to quote what I said on this point, and having tried unsuccessfully to stretch it, will the hon. Member add that I continued to the effect that it would be better that Statutes should be properly phrased and defined in order to remove all doubt?

Mr. Peyton: The Parliamentary Secretary will doubtless attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if he wishes to do so, and he can then repeat any parts of the speech that he made in Committee. I am being quite fair in reminding the House that he said, with emphasis, that he was advised—and he repeated this—that the courts would take the same view either way, whether or not the word was omitted. If that is the case the Government will lose nothing by leaving the word out in all three instances.
We believe that the insertion of the word could involve a fettering of the rights of the individual, and that it would be wrong so to do, especially in this instance. The Minister referred to a "slight misunderstanding". I shall not even avail myself of your kind promise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to allow me to speak for roughly 30 seconds while out of order, but there was no slight misunderstanding in Committee; the Question was put and, for once, the merits of the argument prevailed and the Government failed to produce their majority. If, on the two subsequent occasions, merit and justice were wasted, this was not our fault. We put the point on both occasions and divided the Committee, but by this time the trumpets had sounded and the Government's legions had obeyed the call. The right hon. Gentleman was not even an eye-witness on those occasions.
It is very nice to return to a situation of agreement and harmony with the right hon. Gentleman. These moments do not come along too often. I agree with him that it would be wrong to leave the position as it is. It would be absurd. My hon. Friends and I are suggesting that the word "directly" should be omitted in the two instances where it now remains, it having been already removed by a far-sighted decision of the Committee in the other case.
The right hon. Gentleman's answer today was anything but convincing. He has not done anything to meet the arguments deployed in Committee. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford have the day every time, and in the circum-

stances the only things that I can do is to advise my hon. Friends to give effect to their views in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That "directly" be there inserted in the Bil:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 166.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Horner, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Alldritt, Walter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Palmer, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Atkinson, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howie, W.
Parker, John


Barnett, Joel
Hoy, James
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Beaney, Alan
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Bence, Cyril
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Perry, Ernest G.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bessell, Peter
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Prentice, R. E.


Binns, John
Hynd, John (Atterclitfe)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Probert, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Boardman, H.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Randall, Harry


Boston, T. G.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Redhead, Edward


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Johnson,James(K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Rees, Merlyn


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson,Rt.Hn.K.(St.Pancras,N.)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Kelley, Richard
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Sheldon, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Lawson, George
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Chapman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Darling, George
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McBride, Neil
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Delargy, Hugh
McCann, J.
Steel, David (Roxbu[...]gh)


Dell, Edmund
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dempsey, James
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, John


Driberg, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Stones, William


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Symonds, J. B.


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ensor, David
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thornton, Ernest


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mapp, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Ford, Ben
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Freeson, Reginald
Mayhew, Christopher
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Robert
Wallace, George


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Warbey, William


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Molloy, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Murray, Albert
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Newens, Stan
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hazell, Bert
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Norwood, Christopher
Woof, Robert


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric
Zilliacus, K.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
O'Malley, Brian



Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Harper and Mr. Grey


Hooson, H. E.
Owen, Will





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
More, Jasper


Astor, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Baker, W. H. K.
Grant-Ferris, B.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Peyton, John


Bingham, R. M.
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Binns, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Box, Donald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hawkins, Paul
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Roots, William


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfd &amp; Chiswick)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hornby, Richard
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Stainton, Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stodart, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, J. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cary, Sir Robert
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kilfedder, James A.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Cole, Norman
Kitson, Timothy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cooke, Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Cooper, A. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Cordle, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Walters, Dennis


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ward, Dame Irene


Crawley, Aidan
MacArthur, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Crowder, F. P.
McLaren, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Whitelaw, William


Dalkeith, Earl of
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Dance, James
Maginnis, John E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Dean, Paul
Marten, Neil
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Dighy, Simon Wingfield
Maude, Angus
Wise, A. R.


Doughty, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wood, Rt Hn. Richard


Eden, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Ian Fraser.

Clause 12.—(THE RIGHT TO STORE GAS UNDERGROUND AND RELATED RIGHTS.)

Mr. Lee: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 15, line 3, to leave out from "or" to the end of line 5 and insert:
the person who would have been entitled to grant that right if it had not been acquired by any gas authority".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can discuss with this Amendment the Opposition's Amendment No. 12—in page 15, line 3, leave out from "authority" to end of line 5.

Mr. Lee: The intention of subsection (6) is to prevent the gas industry from

transferring to any third party the rights of underground storage which have been granted to a gas authority under Clause 12. This matter was discussed in Committee, and we tried to summarise the intentions of our wording. Our view is that the gas industry, when it no longer needs the right of underground storage in any particular piece of land, should be free to surrender it by restoring it to the same ownership as the land in which the right is exercisable. In other words, it is not the Government's intention that a right of underground storage should be transferable from the gas industry to any other person.
Criticism was levelled against the present wording. We wanted to look at the wording again to see whether it did the things which we believed it did. We have done that, and I concede at once that the phrase
a person for the time being having an interest in the stratum
does not perhaps make clear, at any rate to the lay mind, that this is the intention. The Amendment would get rid of those words. I think that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) deployed an argument on this point.
In Committee what should be the content of Clause 12(6) was illustrated in a number of ways. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggested that the Bill should make it possible for the exercisable rights of the landowner to be returned to him. To put it in another way, it should enable the landowner to occupy the position which he occupied before the authority acquired storage rights in his land. We are agreed in trying to get the same result and to find a form of words which would achieve this. That is the concept behind the Amendment. I do not think it can say that the gas authority may restore the rights to the original owner, because the ownership of the land might have changed by the time the gas authority no longer needed the right to store. Another way of identifying the one and only person to whom the gas industry is to be entitled to pass back its underground storage rights would be to say it is the person to whom the authority would need to go if it were seeking to acquire the rights instead of to dispose of them.
Having looked at the words in the Bill I agree that there is a point in the argument which was deployed during the Committee stage. I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree that this Amendment resolves the problem and abundantly meets the intention we discussed.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the Minister for taking such care about the point we raised during the Committee stage and I feel that he has tried to meet us. We all agree that the words in the Bill are slightly ambiguous. They could lead to the possibility of a third person

having the right to store gas in the strata. We can now be certain that the third person has been removed.
At first sight the words suggested by the Minister appear suitable and would seem to indicate that the right would go back to the person owning the surface land and to no other person. It occurs to me that a person acquiring the surface land would also, so to speak, acquire a right to store gas under the surface if the Amendment is accepted. This could open up the way for a chemical or an oil company, which wished to use the strata, to acquire the land during the time the gas authority was using the storage facility. The right to store gas might revert to the chemical or oil company at the time of the discontinuance of storage by the gas authority. That is not, I am sure, what the right hon. Gentleman wants and it is not what we want.
Before we leave the Amendment I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that this would not be possible. As I see it, the trouble is that we have brought a right into existence which is of value and which does not exist in any other sense before the Bill becomes operative. No one has any value or right to store gas at present. Having brought that right into existence through this Bill, we have the greatest difficulty in extinguishing it. It will continue to exist no matter who is the owner. Here the difficulty may be described as principally technical. Whoever owns the land will acquire the right to use the strata. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for going into the point. We think that the Amendment makes the situation much clearer and is a great improvement on the original wording in the Bill.
Perhaps the Minister would address himself to the point which I have raised, whether there could be a loophole of which advantage might be taken by a person acquiring the land in the meanwhile. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister on that point. We accept with gratitude the effort which he has made to meet us in this matter.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for what he has said and I


take the point which he has made. The land in which storage rights were exercisable will remain under the control of the Minister by virtue of the provisions in Clause 5 of the Bill until such time as the Minister is satisfied under Clause 18(7) that it is safe to direct otherwise. That, I think, is the kind of guarantee for which the hon. Gentleman was seeking. He is concerned about the safety during the rundown period after storage is discontinued. It is the control exercised by the Minister, to which I have referred, which really matters in this connection. I am practically certain that I am right, but if I am wrong we will look at the matter again and make the necessary alterations.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the Minister. What he has said does help, but it is conceivable that these storages will exist for many thousands of years and what happened in the past will be history. It is conceivable that the right to store will be revoked by the Minister and the duty to satisfy himself that all is safe and finished will lapse. The land with the storage facilities will pass into the hands of some person who may wish to store gas in the strata. Permission having been granted in the past, that person may walk into a ready-made permission to store. It is not only during the period of control under Clause 5 but after it lapses that this may arise.
I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point which obviously is a complicated one. I hope that he will give us an assurance that he will look at the matter carefully, and, if necessary, will take the opportunity in another place to put it right. I have pleasure in welcoming this Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that this is a point of some importance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the undertaking for which my hon. Friend has asked and I should like it clear on the record that the Minister has agreed to this. We want to ensure that the landlord retains the position which he occupied previously. That is the intention of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want him to enjoy all the rights he did before, neither more nor less, and it is the "neither more" which is the thing I a m stressing.

Mr. Lee: I indicated to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that I think that what we are proposing puts this absolutely right, but I will look at the matter again. If there is any doubt, we will seek to redress it in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(GAS AUTHORITY'S LIABILITY FOR UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE.)

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 17, line 3 to leave out from first "section" to "the" in line 4.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment No. 18, in page 23, line 25, to leave out from "conditions" to end of line 28.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged. I quite agree. The point which my hon. Friends and I had in mind when we raised this in Standing Committee was that it would be wrong, in our view, to extinguish the absolute liability under which the gas authority is put when it was not possible, and, quite clearly, never would be possible, to guarantee that all gas had been or could ever be withdrawn from storage. We supported our arguments by reference to Clause 18(3), at the end of which are the words:
… and the Minister may, in particular, include among these provisions the requirement that the gas authority shall withdraw, so far as may be practicable, all gas from the storage.
In other words, it is no part of the Government's case that all gas could be withdrawn from the storage.
What we are concerned about is to see that, first, as a measure of protection to the public, the gas industry's liability should continue indefinitely so long as the gas which it put there itself or any part of that gas is in the storage. We would also be concerned to see that there should be no residual liability upon the landlord, who will not be—I need not refer back to the argument which we have just had—exercising any right to store any gas in the storage or extract any from it and upon whom, therefore, it would be wholly wrong to place any liability for damage done by gas. This point was cleared up in Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary,


who confirmed my understanding that we are concerned only with damage done by gas. We need not go into that point at length now.
The Parliamentary Secretary made the point then that the Government had given careful consideration to the matter, but he said that supervision and liability should both come to an end once the Minister had decided that all was well. I should like to put the point to the Government in this way. If the possibility of damage resulting from the escape of gas is very remote, the liability being put upon the gas authority is a very minimal one. If, on the other hand, there is a real danger of damage being done by the escape of gas, it would be wrong to extinguish this degree of absolute liability. It would certainly be wrong if any liability were to rest upon the landlord who had had no responsibility whatever for the acts concerned.
I hope that the Government will be able to reassure us on this a little more than they were able to in Standing Committee.

Mr. John Morris: I tried to give a fairly full explanation of the position in Committee. If I may reiterate what I said earlier, there are two sides to the coin. There is, first, the absolute liability imposed under Clause 14 upon the gas authority. The other side of the coin is the supervision which is set out in Clause 5. In my submission, it would not be reasonable to hold the gas authority liable under Clause 14 after the control has gone. As I said earlier, I thought that I had made it clear that a decision to end the Minister's control over operations would not be taken at the same time as the order to discontinue the storage, but would come at a later stage.

Mr. Peyton: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that supervision and liability should go hand in hand, but what we are discussing now is the possible damage done by a substance which was put into the storage at a time when the Minister was exercising control. The Minister would be responsible for that. It is admitted by the Government that what was done when the gas industry was quite clearly liable and under supervision cannot be wholly undone, and

that, therefore, a measure of liability should continue. It is a false argument to suggest that, because supervision has been withdrawn, liability should also go. This is what I find difficult to accept.

Mr. Morris: I hope that I am not putting up any false arguments. This thing must be looked at in two stages. There would be, first, the order to discontinue the storage, which the Minister would make after taking into consideration all the matters which he should consider. Even after the order to discontinue had been made, there would remain upon the gas authority absolute liability, it may be for some years. At the same time, there would be imposed upon the Minister the duty of supervising the industry. Therefore, even after the storage had ceased to be used as such, in the kind of situation to which the hon. Gentleman is referring—wherein there might still be some danger—one would envisage that an order to end the Minister's control and thereby to cease to impose upon the gas authority absolute liability might be delayed for some substantial period until there was no danger.
There is an analogy here under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act of 1959. Under Section 2 of that Act, if a nuclear site licence is revoked or surrendered, the licensee's absolute liability also continues until the Minister gives notice that, in his opinion, there has ceased to be any danger from ionising radiations from anything on the site.
As I said earlier—I repeat it now—this is on all fours with the position under that Act. I would venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the situation is adequately protected, as one can see if one looks at the position as it would be. First, there would be the order to discontinue accompanied by the continuance, one would think, of supervision of controlled operations; and, while supervision continued, the imposition of absolute liability. But the Minister deems it satisfactory that he should withdraw supervision once he is satisfied that there is no danger. It is not a question of whether gas remains or does not remain in the sub-strata; it is a question of whether the Minister can be satisfied, in those circumstances, that it is safe for him to cease his supervisory powers over the gas authority. Once he takes that decision, I


should have thought that absolute liability should go. Once that position is reached, I submit that it would be quite wrong to continue to impose upon the gas authority absolute liability when the Minister no longer has any supervisory powers over it.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated what he said in Standing Committee—that once that stage is reached we revert to common law. He said in Standing Committee that at that point, in the normal way, anyone who suffered damage could revert to the ordinary rules of negligence and could claim in that way. That is absolutely clear so far as it goes, but I still see no ground for extinguishing this liability. The mere fact that the Minister has no control does not seem to me to be important. I appreciate that it is unlikely that any damage is likely to be done by the gas which the gas authority puts there. That being so, it seems that no matter how long the interval of time may have been, the gas authority should remain liable.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not adverted to the point I raised about any residual liability on the owner of the land. Perhaps damage will occur as a result of an escape of gas. It would be more convenient for a plaintiff to go for the more easily ascertainable owner, the landlord, than the Gas Council in respect of something which happened perhaps many years ago. It would be clearer, fairer and more reasonable if this liability were not extinguished.
I am sure that we have said enough today to make the Government aware of our views. In the nature of things, there is little chance of the Parliamentary Secretary changing his mind on this issue. I appreciate that this is a complicated problem and I hope that the Governernment will have another look at the matter and will, if they think fit, raise it again in another place.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that after the absolute liability imposed by the Statute comes to an end there will, as I pointed out in Committee, remain the common law liability for anything that might take place. I understand that my right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman about the case of a landlord who might be sued in the remote circumstances we

are discussing, circumstances which I find difficult to envisage. I understand that my right hon. Friend wrote to him referring to some remarks which I made in Committee about the danger of any person being sued quite wrongly and to the fact that he would be able to rely on the normal third party procedure upon which any person who is sued in these circumstances could rely.
I would only add on this subject that there are two sides to the coin. At the end of day the Minister is responsible to Parliament for any decision which he makes and he would not cease his supervisory powers until he was satisfied that the situation was in order and that there was, in practice, no danger to anyone. I have stressed time and again that absolute liability should go hand in hand with the supervisory powers of the Minister.

Mr. Peyton: I appreciate that there is something in the Parliamentary Secretary's argument—that is, to the point at which he goes back to that favourite hunting ground of Ministers, when he says that the Minister will be absolutely satisfied that everyone else is satisfied. Seen from this side of the House, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that when Ministers tell us that all will be well when they are satisfied, and that they would not be satisfied except when everybody else is satisfied, that makes it an argument which, from our point of view, is very much weaker.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16.—(SAFETY CONDITIONS.)

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, Amendment No. 15, in line 11, after "from", insert:
or the addition of any ingredient or substance to".
The purpose of the Amendment is to spell out that the Minister may make it a condition upon the gas authority that not only should it, as a prerequisite of safety, remove or reduce any particular constituent in gas, but that it may also add to the gas.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made this observation in Committee, and among the attractive suggestions he made was that it might be advantageous in certain circumstances to add smell to gas to ensure


the safety of the public in that they would be aware of the existence of gas, having regard to the tendency of gas not to have a smell these days. While there was, as I said, not strictly a need for the specific insertion of this power for the Minister, we have agreed that it would be advantageous to spell this out exactly and so ensure that it is written into the Statute.
The difficulty about the Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was that, had it been accepted as drafted, it would not have been grammatical. I undertook to introduce a suitable Amendment to cover the point, which is what I am doing.

Mr. Ridley: I apologise for my bad grammar in Committee and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having met the point of substance with the Amendment. It is gratifying to note the care which the Government have taken in considering our Committee discussions on the Bill. They have picked up the various undertakings they made and have, where-ever possible, put right the defects which we found in the Bill. Our labours in Committee are by no means wasted if this is always done by the Government.
We had a good debate on this subject in Committee and I have no need to go over the ground again. Various of my hon. Friends have been conducting experiments with respect to gas smells. My hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) discovered a gas leak in the drive of a constituent's home and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) told us about explosions in the bars of public houses.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone some way towards agreeing that underground storage methods are safer and are in every way more desirable than the ordinary gasometer on the surface. Perhaps it should be added that our desire for the addition of a smell to gas was not only because that would be in the interest of the public—indeed, most hon. Members will agree that leaks which are harmful to the public are unlikely—but because the gas authority, perhaps more than anybody, should be aware of leaks to prevent enormous amounts of

gas being lost into the atmosphere. The addition of a smell to gas will enable leaks to be traced all the sooner, and we welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, Amendment No. 17, in page 20, line 27, after "storage", to insert:
or any activity or matter connected therewith".

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient to extend the discussion to cover Amendment No. 16, in line 27, leave out "as respects the storage".

Mr. Morris: That will be convenient. Mr. Speaker. It was suggested in Committee, again by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that the words "as respects the storage" were restrictive. Certainly, that was not the intention of the Government and I gave an assurance that I would look into the matter.
Amendment No. 16 is designed to leave out the words "as respects the storage", but it is doubtful whether the intention of the Opposition would be achieved by deleting those words. An Amendment of that sort was moved in Committee, when I agreed to consider the Opposition's suggestion sympathetically. I have done that and since the simple omission of the words "as respects the storage" might conceivably leave the Clause open to be interpreted in different ways, we consider it preferable to add the words in Amendment No. 17, which will make it clear that the measures which the Minister may order under subsection (2,c) of the Clause may extend to activities or matters connected with storage.

Mr. Ridley: We are again grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for taking notice of this point and for moving an Amendment which my hon. Friends and I amply accept and welcome. I believe that the wording is now wide enough and I agree that nothing should lie outside the scope of the words
or any activity or matter connected therewith.
They are as wide as we could possibly hope for and I believe that this will help to ensure that the most stringent


and satisfactory safety precautions are taken by the Minister throughout the exercise. We indeed welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART II.)

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move. Amendment No. 19, in page 33, line 16, after "this" to insert "Part of this".

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, the Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

Mr. Morris: That will be satisfactory, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of these Amendments is concerned with the interpretation of Part II of the Bill. The Clause, as its side heading makes clear, is concerned with the interpretation of Part II. Although it starts off with the words
In this part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires …
like subsection (1), subsections (2), (3) and (4) interpret Part II and should, therefore, be amended to make the position clear. The other point is that subsection (5) should apply to the Bill as a whole and should be transferred to Part III. The Amendments should make the position absolutely clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 20, after "this" insert "Part of this".

In line 23, after "this" insert "Part of this".

In line 25, after "this" insert "Part of this".

In line 35, after "this" insert "Part of this".

In line 36, leave out subsection (5).

In page 34, line 3, after "this", insert "Part of this".—[Mr. J. Morris.]

Clause 32.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETA- TION, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Amendment made: In page 35, line 4, at end insert:
(3) Except in so far as the context otherwise requires, any reference in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by or under any other enactment, including this Act.—[Mr. J. Morris.]

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendments made: In line 4, leave out first "and".

In line 6, after "strata", insert
and to modify section 52 of the Gas Act 1948".—[Mr. J. Morris.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
On Second Reading, the Bill was generally welcomed as a contribution to the modernisation of British industry. This was, perhaps, to be expected, since its origin goes back to the Report of the all-party Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries which, in 1961, advocated changes in the structure of the gas industry and drew attention to the importance of underground storage of gas. That this Bill should now be receiving its Third Reading even four years after the publication of that Report is very considerable tribute to the work of the Committee and the hon. Members who took part in its deliberations.
The Bill, when introduced, had two main purposes. It has since acquired a third purpose which is reflected in the Amendment to the Long Title. I refer to the alteration we have agreed in Section 52 of the Gas Act. I believe that the Government Amendment maintains the principle, which goes back to before nationalisation, that the position of the gas industry as the supplier of gas for fuel uses, should be safeguarded, while, at the same time, it modifies the Section to take account of the growing use of gases for chemical processing. It is fair to say that the area gas boards have exercised their powers under the 1948 Act in an eminently reasonable way, but, nevertheless, there are advantages in giving statutory recognition to the changes that have taken place since the 1948 Measure was enacted.
The main purpose of the Bill remains the same. It is to enable the gas industry to take full advantage of the technological advances that are transforming not only that industry but very many other industries. As the Select Committee pointed out, the industry's statutory position no longer fully reflects the changes brought about by those advances,


and the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that it does so.
The scope that now exists for the development of large-scale supply schemes requires the new powers and responsibilities at the centre which the Bill confers on the Gas Council. We all know that these powers were previously exclusive to the boards, and that the Council itself did not possess them. These powers supplement—they do not in any way replace—the powers of the area boards, and it is no part of the purpose of the Bill to restrict the boards' scope for initiative and enterprise.
Not all the new methods of providing gas require to be operated on a scale transcending the needs of individual boards, and some are well suited for development on an area basis. However, we know the possibilities in the North Sea, and so on, which obviously would not be appropriate or applicable merely to one area board. It is, therefore, right that the Council itself should acquire these powers.
As I said on Second Reading, the aim is to provide a structure which will enable the gas industry to select whichever methods—local or central supply—are most advantageous to the users of gas. Under the present structure of the industry, the area boards have done a very good job in modernising an old established industry. The fact that, as a result of technological advance, modifications need now to be made in that structure, is in no way a criticism of their performance. It is, indeed, a compliment to them.
Since Second Reading, the Bill has been given a careful and searching examination in Committee. Some improvements have been made in its drafting and—what has been particularly valuable—there has been the opportunity to discuss and clarify the intentions behind its more important provisions.
Much of the discussion has rightly been concerned with the safety aspects of underground storage. This is a new development in this country, and some people will be uncertain and apprehensive about its effects. It would seem, indeed, that new methods of storing gas have this inherent tendency to arouse apprehension. In his history of the gas industry,

"The Vital Flame", Sir Compton Mackenzie relates the difficulties of Samuel Clegg in persuading everybody that the large cylindrical gasholder, which he had invented, was not a menace to the community. The first gasholders he erected had to be covered by buildings, and when he finally erected them in the open, even expert opinion was convinced that they would be at the mercy of every passing thunderstorm. We have moved on a little since then.
The Bill's provisions for the control of the development and operation of these storages should give assurance that this new means of providing for seasonal changes in the demand for gas will be developed only where this can be done without endangering people or property. But as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) have stressed, it will be important, if unnecessary apprehension is to be allayed, to ensure that people who are likely to be affected understand what is involved.
The Government fully accept the need to explain both the nature of underground storage and how the provisions of the Bill will operate. The Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking when this question was discussed in Standing Committee that, after the Bill has been enacted, the Government will issue a pamphlet explaining, as simply as possible, what is involved in underground storage and the rights afforded by the Act. This follows the procedure adopted by the previous Government for two Acts affecting private interests for which the Ministry of Power was responsible.
Finally, I should like to express my keen appreciation of the co-operative spirit with which the Bill has been received on both sides of the House, and particularly when it was under discussion in Committee. A good Bill has, as a result, been improved, and I hope that the House will now give the Bill its Third Reading.

7.2 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: My constituents are very closely concerned with the Bill. As a matter of history, it was very largely owing to the objections raised by the Winchester City Council, and others, that


the earlier Measure was withdrawn in 1963. It was absolutely correct to do that then, because that earlier Bill was, by common consent, quite inadequate.
It must, at the same time, be emphasised that there was nothing wrong then with the principle of storing gas underground, just as there is nothing wrong with it now. In the detailed discussions that are inevitable in connection with such a very complicated and technical Bill as this, terms like "some degree of risk" have to be bandied about. It is, therefore, important to make it quite clear that no danger arises directly from the fact that gas is stored underground.
Just as it is possible to be electrocuted from electrical supplies, or run over by motor cars in motion on the road, so it is possible to be poisoned by gas where-ever it is used, but it should be emphasised that there is no additional risk from gas just because it is stored underground I therefore welcome the Minister's promise that his Ministry will issue an explanatory leaflet making that quite clear. All in all, I am, without any reservations, entirely in favour of the Bill.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Braine: I hope that the House will forgive me if I put what is purely a constituency point. It is now quite clear that subsection (7) of Clause 3 was inserted in the Bill to prevent the Canvey Island Urban District Council, in my constituency, from drawing what it considers to be a reasonable rate revenue from the fine new methane plant which the Minister formerly opened last month, and which started operating last October.
I was delighted to have the opportunity on an historic occasion to welcome the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to my constituency, when the Minister performed that opening ceremony. It was an exciting moment for all of us. It was exciting for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who was present, and who played a major part in sparking off this great enterprise when he approved the Gas Council's scheme in, I think, November, 1961. It was an exciting moment for the Minister, who was certainly in good form and seemed to be enjoying himself, and who congratulated the Gas

Council on its combination of calculation and daring—I hope that I have his words right.
It was an exciting moment for my constituents and myself, because we are very glad to know that the plant supplies gas to no fewer than eight of the gas boards, that it is a major factor in keeping down the cost of town's gas, and that it will meet about 10 per cent. of the country's total gas requirements.
Having said that, I must go on to say that, unhappily, because of the peculiar way in which gas undertakers are rated, we have here an industrial plant which covers about 70 acres of a valuable area of land in quite a small urban district, but which contributes practically no rate revenue at all. Indeed, the Canvey Island Urban District Council contemplated action in the courts on the grounds that what took place in the plant constituted a manufacturing process within the meaning of Section 11(4) of the Local Government Act, 1958. Had it been able to prove that, the authority was certain it would have attracted a very considerable rate revenue to itself.
The introduction of the Bill frustrated the council. This is not the time or the place to repeat all the arguments I advanced in Committee. In any case, I think that Canvey's case in this difficult technical rating matter is recognised. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who I am very pleased to see here now, went out of his way in Committee to be helpful.
The hon. Gentleman explained that there is a working party at present considering rating and valuation. Among other things, it is examining the formula relating to gas and electricity undertakings, and the Railways Board. He said that the Urban District Councils' Association could raise the matter on behalf of the Canvey Urban District Council, but he went further, and I quote:
I give the hon. Member a pledge that my Department will put the issue to the working party. We shall make representations to the working party and see to it that this matter is carefully considered. Whether or not this issue is raised by the Association, we will most certainly raise it.
That was a very generous approach and both I and my local authority were


very pleased it was made. We accepted the hon. Member's assurances in the spirit in which they were offered. But there are still several questions which are worrying the local authority and this is the only opportunity I shall have of putting them to the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary. Clearly, if the working party does not report fairly soon, then, because of the delay in applying for the rating formula, Canvey may be at a serious disadvantage. The reason I mention this is because the Parliamentary Secretary did say in Committee that an authority with new gas works in its area will not get rates on the extra production for two years and, for clarification, there are three questions I would like to ask.
The first is: has the working party yet considered the matter? If not, can the hon. Gentleman say when the Government are likely to put the point to the working party in accordance with the promise made in Committee? Secondly, can the hon. Gentleman say when it is expected that the working party will report and when legislative effect will be given to those recommendations? I appreciate this may be difficult to answer, but the reason I ask is to find out whether it will before 1966–67. Thirdly, bearing in mind that the plant has been working since October of last year, will the new formula under which Canvey would expect to benefit be applied retrospectively or only from the date on which the Bill becomes an Act?
The point I am trying to make here is that if the new formula applies only from the appointed day under the Bill, then presumably it will always be open to the Canvey Island Urban District Council to establish if they wish that the through-put for the interim period, that is, from last October, when the plant started working, up to the appointed day, amounted to manufactured gas within the meaning of Section 11(4) of the Local Government Act, 1958.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if Canvey Island Urban District Council is free to take this action this would enable it to ensure, assuming that it established its case before the courts, that the rate payment under the existing statutory formula for the year 1964–65 is weighted accordingly.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer these somewhat technical questions and so remove the doubt and anxiety still being caused to the council in my constituency. I hope that he will be able to say that because there is a delay in the application of these rating formulæ he will be able to confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said in Committee, namely, that the purpose of subsection (7) is certainly not to do Canvey Island in the eye, but is a holding provision intended to avoid an upset to the whole basis of gas rates in the North Thames area.
I hope that this is the answer, but I repeat that the date upon which legislative effect is given to the new formula is obviously of importance to an authority which hopes to gain something more from the operation of this plant than it is getting at the moment.

7.8 p.m.

Dr. Bennett: My interest in this is partly general and partly local, although at no point does it become a constituency matter for me. When the first intentions of starting an underground storage system for gas near Winchester were voiced I was then, or had until recently been, Chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and when we had the opportunity of examining this subject we found that this was, from a national and scientific point of view, an altogether admirable type of innovation which had been proved in other parts of the world and, clearly, had a great future and could have an enormously valuable economic effect.
This was overwhelmingly self-evident. But when I discovered, in the district chosen for the first appropriate anticline where the gas was to be impounded, that the scientific procedures were going ahead but the civil procedures that should go with them were not going ahead, I began to smell a rat. Mr. Peter Smithers, the former Member for Winchester, was serving at that time at the United Nations in Washington, and when a well-known local farmer, Mr. Tom Hewer, of Chilcombe, brought this up to me in a state of high alarm I myself became temporarily involved until Mr. Smithers' return from America.
It seemed abundantly clear that the methods by which the Gas Council and


the Gas Board were setting about their business were administratively arrogant. They were not prepared to take any cognisance of the phrase we have heard used repeatedly today, "injurious affection", and other possible damages to people living on the ground over the anticline which was to be used. Numbers of borings were taken and the structure appeared to be sound, but if there were any faults in the structure they would only come to light too late. The point referred to me by this particular farmer, who had built up a very fine farm, was that he might have his holding rendered relatively valueless and would have absolutely no redress whatsoever.
When this situation came up I did what I could to block the progress of what ultimately blossomed into the form of a Bill. I tried to nip that blossom in the bud and when superseded by the then Member for Winchester, this we were duly able to do. It is, therefore, a great joy to me today to be able to welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, which sets out to become a responsible national Bill and, in due course, an Act of Parliament. It sets out what a Private Bill, promoted by the Gas Council or a local gas board, could never bring about because insufficient attention had been paid to the rights of the individual. It was not, of course, a matter of grasping landlords. It was the very unpleasant fate feared by people living on the surface, against which they would have no redress. I am happy to say that I am satisfied that Clause 14 and other Clauses take over willingly and unreservedly the liability to householders on the surface which the Gas Council in its former efforts was adamantly unwilling to attempt to do.
I therefore give the Bill, in my own name and, I am sure, in the names of those who were previously so gravely alarmed by what had gone on, a welcome. This is the combination of national good with local good, or at least not local evil. I warmly welcome the Bill.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friends that this is a good Bill. It has been further improved in Committee. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a very much better Bill than the next one of which he will be in charge in the House if we read the signs aright.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall give that Bill the same careful scrutiny that we have given this one. I thank my hon. Friends who have taken part in the Committee and Report stages for the careful and helpful way in which they have checked every line of the legislation and for the way they have looked after the public interest. It is also my pleasant duty to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and efficiency throughout his conduct of the Bill. The same goes for the Minister, although, true to form, he is not here.
I am sure that Part I provides the right solution and that the Gas Council should be given power to engage in the manufacture, storage and sale of gas. The House is agreed that the thirteenth board solution would have been the wrong solution. Therefore, we welcome the power now given to the Gas Council itself to correlate, organise and centralise the planning of the industry's needs, the planning of new ventures from the new processes, and the organisation of benefits derived from the North Sea or from wherever it may go to buy feedstock gases.
The gas industry is the most favoured of the fuel industries in the position in which it is placed by the Government. There are no import restrictions. It is not tied to coal or to any particular raw material. The measures announced by the Ministry recently have little or no effect upon the gas industry. It is allowed to roam free, to be as efficient as it can, and to use all the processes and all the imports it needs to further its efficiency.
In return for this, we look to the gas industry to use those opportunities and to provide the dividend in the form of cheaper gas in the future which we all expect and hope to see. I go further and add the possibility of exports. We did not raise the question of exports again on Report. There is the distinct possibility, if we are lucky in the North Sea and if we are lucky in our bargaining, that this country will become a net exporter of gas. I remind the House that very little oil is produced in this country, yet it is a net earner of foreign exchange, or at least it was until the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget, and I am sure it will be in the future. These things are possible,


and it is possible for gas as well. I hope the industry will do it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has put with great ability the point about the rates at Canvey Island. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will take note of what my hon. Friend said. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to solve this problem and to find an equitable solution. We hope that he will not be too long, because we are certain that the gas industry can at least afford to pay the rates and we hope that Canvey Island will benefit when the solution is eventually found.
Coming to Part II, I am convinced that underground storage in strata is in fact a safer way of storing gas than storing it in surface gas holders. All of us in the House owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) for the statesmanlike way in which he has handled this question on behalf of his constituents, well knowing that there is every likelihood that the first storage will be proposed in his constituency. He has been a great contributor to our debates. He will have brought much reassurance and comfort to his constituents from having elicited the fact that there is a very small chance that there could be any flaw or danger in this proposal.
We have examined the Bill rigorously in Committee, principally with regard to safety. I am glad that a pamphlet is to be produced dealing with the safety of these proposals. In respect of compensation we have examined the proposals with great care and have come to the conclusion that they are fair and reasonable. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is not here to complain about the compensation provisions in the Bill. It surprises me very much that he should have turned his attention to Bills more in the popular eye than this Bill which we think is fair and reasonable.
Lastly, the rights of individuals, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), have been taken care of in the Bill.
With those few words, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome the Bill. We have

legislated for cheaper gas. It is now up to the industry to provide us with that cheaper gas in the future.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I shall be as brief as possible in dealing with the points raised in the course of the debate.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) asked whether the Working Party at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had considered the matter. I am given to understand that a Working Party has held a meeting. The meeting was to discuss the procedure which it will follow to consider these matters. It will discuss the very points which the hon. Gentleman made to the House. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Working Party was set up as far back as 1963. He will also remember the points made by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, namely, that there was a year's delay on the part of some of the local authorities in sending their views to the Working Party. The Working Party should not be faulted for any delay; there has been no delay on its part. I am given to understand by my hon. Friend that it is seized of the importance and urgency of this matter and will report as soon as it can.
I am asked, further, whether any legislation will be retrospective. It would he wrong to anticipate the Working Party's recommendations. It has to look at the global rating effect, not only of the Canvey Island authority, but of all the authorities within the North Thames area. It would be wrong for me to give any assurance about the nature of any legislation or any statutory effect which is to be given, or may need to be given, to the Working Party's conclusions. We must reserve our position on this. I can merely say that the Working Party is seized of the importance of all the matters which have been so forcibly put before the House by the hon. Member and it will do its utmost to report to my right hon. Friend as soon as possible.
I am glad of the welcome which the Bill has received on Second Reading, in Committee and now from the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles). On the issue of


safety I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading:
The essence of safe practice lies in carrying out the operation in the right conditions and in the right way. If the site selected for an underground storage satisfies the necessary geological requirements and the storage is operated in accordance with well-established practice, the Government are confident that underground gas storage will not endanger the public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 585.]
I was glad to tell the House earlier that I had the privilege yesterday, through the hospitality of Gaz de France, to visit underground storages near Paris. It is pertinent to point out that in other parts of the world this is a well-established procedure. The sites which I visited are both within 40 miles of Paris and I have the assurance of the President of Gaz de France that he had not come across any difficulties with regard to the safety of the public. Other countries store gas underground and it is novel only in this country. To make assurance doubly sure, if there were any remote chance of anything going wrong there are, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has indicated, adequate and fair terms for compensation.
I also welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). In Committee I gave assurances that I would look at a number of points. Most of them have been dealt with on Report and I need not worry the House by going through them again. We went at great length into the point raised about procedure for authorising storages. After having looked at the matter thoroughly again I am satisfied that there will be the right procedure and stages for ensuring, first, that the Minister is aware of all the considerations before authorising any storage, and, secondly, that all individual interested parties will have ample opportunity to make their representations before the inquiries which will be set up.
Another query raised in Committee was whether there was any possible weakness by virtue of the restrictive nature of the words "on that date" in Clause 7. I have taken advice and I assure the House that there is no difficulty. They are not restrictive in the sense of the observations and fears which were voiced in Committee by hon. Members opposite. There is

established practice on this point and the words now in the Bill are the proper words for this kind of enactment.
We have dealt either in Committee, on Report and now with all the points raised, I hope to the satisfaction of the whole House. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury indicated that this was a better Bill that I was handling than some of the Bills which we shall be handling in future. The Ministry of my right hon. Friend and myself has been a very modernising Ministry. We introduced modernising legislation in the Nuclear Installations Bill, which is now an Act, and here we have a modernising Bill for the gas industry. I hope that in due course we shall score a hat-trick and introduce a modernising Measure for the steel industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

7.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This short Bill makes a number of amendments to the special Parliamentary procedure for Ministerial Orders which was devised at the end of the last war and embodied in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945.
There are more than 40 public Acts and many local Acts of Parliament under which Ministers have power to make Orders subject to the special procedure. It has, therefore, been used a great deal and has proved its usefulness. It gives Parliament the opportunity, if Members so wish, of bringing into debate on the Floor of the House, Ministerial Orders which are executive in character and, for the most part, local and detailed in application. It also provides machinery whereby those who are affected by an Order—whether local authorities or private individuals—may make their objections known to Parliament.
The Bill leaves the essential features of the special procedure untouched, but it makes four amendments which are generally agreed to be improvements. I will refer to these as briefly as possible. When an Order is before the House, the 1945 Act provides a period of 14 days during which persons affected may present petitions against the Order and a further period of 14 days during which Members may move its annulment. The Bill extends each of these periods to 21 days, thus giving more time to prospective petitioners and to Members of both Houses.
Under the 1945 Act, a petition was required to disclose what the Act called
a substantial ground of objection to the order".
The Bill removes that requirement which is not imposed on other types of petition to Parliament. The Chairman of Ways and Means in this House, and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords have a joint responsibility for examining petitions: they see no reason for this requirement and would prefer to be without it.
The third amendment, in Clause 1(4), is rather more complicated. It allows the two Chairmen a discretion to refuse to accept any petition—or part of a petition—which would widen the scope of the Order. I must explain the reason for this. Before an Order comes to Parliament, there are preliminary proceedings—notices, advertisements, a period of time for objections, and—in most cases where there are objections—a public inquiry.
These proceedings safeguard the interests of all persons affected by an Order. When they have been completed, the Minister responsible for the Order cannot alter it in a way which would make it more onerous, or applicable to other people who have not had the benefit of the safeguards in the preliminary proceedings. Nobody should be free to amend an Order in this way and it was never intended that a petitioner should be able to do so. The Chairman of Ways and Means welcomes the discretion which this amendment gives him.
Finally, I come to the most important of these amendments. Under the 1945 Act, a petition praying for particular amendments to the Order is considered by a Joint Committee, but a petition

which objects to the Order generally—a "petition of general objection"—is referred to a Joint Committee only if either House so orders. Clause 1(5) provides that a petition of objection will be referred to a Joint Committee unless either House resolves otherwise.
In other words, the bias in future will be towards allowing a petition of objection to go to a Joint Committee. If the responsible Minister, or other Members of either House, consider that a particular petition of objection raises matters which ought to be brought into debate on the Floor, that can be arranged.
This Bill is not a party issue. The review of special Parliamentary procedure which led to the Bill was carried out under the previous Government. In the past, there have sometimes been differences of opinion about various aspects of the special procedure; but they have never split on party lines. Our only concern here has been to make improvements to one of the more complicated procedures of Parliament in order to give Members of both Houses, and private objectors, a little more time to consider Orders and a little more room to manœuvre. In doing this, we have tried to keep the special procedure as speedy and as efficient as possible, while leaving with Ministers the ultimate responsibility for their own executive actions and policies.
I should like to pay to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) the tribute which I paid to him upstairs in Committee. His contribution to debate on the Bill has been extremely valuable. The party opposite is indebted to him for the work which he has done in matters of this kind, and the Government have appreciated it. The hon. Member has helped to get the Bill through. It is a small, rather complicated but useful Bill, and I commend it to the House.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has explained the Bill to the House. I give him his full title because he has taken on a job which is not really his to do, but if I may say so, and congratulate him in so doing, he has done it with good humour and good grace, explaining very fully what the Bill is about.
This special Parliamentary procedure, which the Bill tidies up, can be useful to the House, but it can also be dangerous, depending on how it is used by the Government of the day. In supporting the Bill, I have assumed that the amendments which the Bill makes to the special procedure will be properly used by the present Government, and I hope that I have not been too naive, too green or too innocent in so doing. I am not so sure, thinking back over the past six months, that I was right to assume that the present Government might not wish to use this procedure for political purposes. I hope that they will not use the Bill for such purposes, because we are now using the special procedure for very important matters which come before the House.
Clause 1(2) provides that there shall be 21 days for a petition against an Order, that is 21 days after the Order has been laid before the House. The period is 21 days and no more. The subsection provides also that there shall be 21 days for a Member of the House to put down a Motion to annul an Order under the special procedure, that is, 21 days after a report from the Chairman. Again, it is 21 days and no more. This question was raised in Committee, and the period in the Bill as it now comes before us is a fixed one of 21 days.
There is a point here which, perhaps, I ought to have cleared up before. Is it 21 days or 21 sitting days of the House? I am not quite sure, as the Bill is worded. But, in any case, whether it be sitting days of the House or just 21 days, the time limit is most important because it is possible for a Prayer against an Order to be squeezed out by Government business.
Under the present Act, the period is 14 days, and it is now proposed to extend it to 21 days, but the ordinary Statutory Instrument has 40 sitting days of the House as the period in which a Prayer can be tabled against it. If any Government play tricks with Government business, squeezing out private Members' Prayers, some of the most important matters with which these Orders deal may be effectively guillotined and never come before the House.
I speak of important matters because, particularly during the last three years, the special Parliamentary procedure has

been used for matters involving tens of millions of pounds coming before the House on a simple Order. I go back to the Pipe-lines Act, 1962, under which an Order might involve vast sums of money for the laying of pipelines. Under the Water Resources Act, Orders altering river authority areas, transferring functions or property from other authorities, and so on, can involve millions of pounds, and the time within which hon. and right hon. Members have to consider such an Order is the period of 21 days after the Chairman has reported, as fixed by Clause 1(2). The Harbours Act, 1964, applied the special Parliamentary procedure to harbour revision orders, harbour empowerment orders and harbour reorganisation schemes.
To show the magnitude of the matters involved, I refer, as I did in Committee, to a scheme for the extension of the Liverpool Docks, into my constituency. This is a £65 million scheme to construct 32 deep-water berths, taking up a large residential area in my constituency, and it is, perhaps, the biggest scheme for the development of docks which has ever been undertaken not only in this country but in the world. It will come before the House on a special Parliamentary procedure Order, and hon. Members will have 21 days from the date of the report to decide whether to pray against it and raise a debate upon it.
The House has just been dealing with a similar Measure, the Gas Bill, under which storage authorisation orders will be subject to the special procedure. The next Bill on the Order Paper, the Airports Authority Bill, is another example. The powers exercised in respect of airports for civilian aviation are subject to special procedure Orders when, for example, roads are to be closed or land is to be acquired for aerodromes. We shall see this special procedure used more and more, and the House will have to work not only under the procedure as laid down in the 1946 Act but under the amendments to it made by the present Bill.
Over the past three years in particular, we have used this procedure more and more for more and more important matters. I wonder whether the special Parliamentary procedure is to be used under the Steel Bill which is to come


before the House. Is this the reason for tidying up the procedure?

Mr. Mellish: Well, really!

Mr. Page: Yes; we are told in the White Paper that the Steel Bill will contain provisions enabling the Minister of Power, in certain circumstances, to bring into public ownership a company which does not become publicly owned by the operation of the Bill itself, that company not being included in the 14. Is the special procedure to be used for bringing companies other than the 14 into nationalisation?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman really must not try to get away with the idea that, somehow, all the virtues are on his side of the House and all the evils are on this side. The first thing that his own party did when returning to power was to amend certain of the procedures of the House. He will remember that the time for Prayers was altered so as to make certain that the Government could get their business through. His own Government ensured that Government business had priority. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this Bill received the agreement of the Chairman of Ways and Means and others, and he himself has supported it until this moment. He is now seeing mischief in it which could not possibly exist.

Mr. Page: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman is well informed on the procedure governing Prayers and about the alteration which was made to restrict debate on Prayers to the period between ten o'clock and half-past eleven. This is the very point to which I was coming.
We must be assured that the 21 days provided for will be effective. Any Prayer against a special procedure Order has to be brought within that period as provided by the Bill, and, in addition, it must be brought during a certain time of the evening, that is, between 10 and 11.30 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: Which the hon. Gentleman's Government brought in.

Mr. Page: Indeed, yes. In a few weeks, the Government may become pressed for

time and may be a little desperate about it. I want to ensure that, if any of these special procedure Orders do come forward, they will not be squeezed out by Government business. I ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, if he may have leave of the House to speak again, to give a specific undertaking that the Government will always find time for Prayers against special procedure Orders especially when they involve such vast schemes and enormous sums of money as those which I have mentioned. This is a really important matter.
The hon. Gentleman will recall, when what I call the 11.30 rule was introduced, Sir Harry Crookshank, as he then was, gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government at that time that they would always find time for Prayers of this sort. Do this Government stand by that undertaking? Since it was given, more and more important matters have come before the House on this type of Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat that firm assurance which was given by the previous Government some years ago, that Prayers will not be squeezed out by Government business. On this occasion, when we are tidying up the special procedure, at a time when the special procedure is being used more and more and there is a new Government in office, the undertaking ought to be repeated, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance on the matter.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: By leave of the House, may I speak again? The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) asks me for certain assurances. Let me assure him—if he does not know already—that the Labour Government is the Government of a party of social democrats. We understand what democracy is all about. I cannot spell out to him the exact way in which future events will unfold, but, if he wishes to ask a question of that kind, he might put it to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.
The hon. Gentleman asks me for an assurance. Perhaps I might ask him for one. May we be assured that we shall have no nonsense from his side of the House as regards filibustering?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(THE BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 5, leave out from "shall" to second "the" in line 6 and insert:
ensure that there is at least one member of the Authority who has special knowledge and experience of".

7.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move, That this House Both agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment will be quite clear to the House. In the original form, the Minister had permissive power to appoint a representative who could act, as it were, as a representative of Scotland. Under the new form of words, which the Minister is prepared to accept, the Minister is under an instruction from the House, as regards the formation of the Authority, that a representative should be appointed with experience of Scotland. I am sure that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will he delighted by this acknowledgment of the importance of Scotland which we shall bear in mind in forming the Authority, and the particular importance we attach to Prestwick as an international airport.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 21, after "Minister" insert
after consultation with the Authority".

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The noble Lords in another place felt that the Authority should have power to choose and to appoint the auditors to the Authority. We find ourselves not in agreement with this view. The Minister appoints the auditors on behalf of the public, and it would not be wise or just to the general community for the Autho-

rity to be responsible for the appointment. It is, however, felt that there would be much advantage in the Authority being consulted before the appointment is made. That is the intention of the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(BYELAWS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 15, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 16 and insert "vesting date".

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a drafting mistake in the original form which would have meant that between Royal Assent to the Bill and vesting date, certain byelaws which exist by virtue of authority under the Military Lands Act, 1892, could not be applied. The effect of this could have meant that for some months, perhaps as long as six or seven months, traffic signs on an airport need not have been obeyed. To avoid this possibility, the Amendment has been introduced to ensure that these byelaws relating to traffic signs and enactments shall apply until vesting date and until the Airports Authority can make its own byelaws under the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10.—(AIRPORT POLICE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 5, leave out "of an equal number".

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These words are being deleted because they are superfluous. There is no requirement to have an equal number of representatives from the Authority and from the staff side because, under the following subsection, in the case of disagreement between the two sides a form of arbitration is put forward. It is, therefore, thought that the phrase which the Amendment seeks to delete is unnecessary.
I might add that the staff side have agreed to the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A.—(GRANTS TOWARDS COST OF SOUNDPROOFING DWELLINGS.)


Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 9, at end, insert:


"A.—(1) If it appears to the Minister that dwellings near an aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority require further protection from noise and vibration attributable to the use of the aerodrome than can be given by measures taken or to be taken in pursuance of section 14 of this Act he may by statutory instrument make a scheme requiring the Authority to make grants towards the cost of insulating such dwellings or parts of such dwellings against noise.


(2) A scheme under this section shall specify the area or areas in which dwellings must be situated for the grants to be payable, and the persons to whom, the expenditure in respect of which and the rate at which the grants are to be paid, and may make the payment of any grant dependent upon compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the scheme.


(3) A scheme under this section may require the Authority, in any case where an application for a grant is refused, to give the applicant at his request a written statement of its reasons for the refusal.


(4) A scheme under this section may authorise or require local authorities to act as agents of the Authority in dealing with applications for and payments of grants and may provide for the making by the Authority of payments to local authorities in respect of anything done by them as such agents.


(5) A scheme under this section may make different provision with respect to different areas or different circumstances and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme under this section.


(6) Before making a scheme under this section the Minister shall consult the Authority.


(7) Any statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

Read a Second time.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from "aerodrome" to "require".
The effect of my Amendment would be to extend the number of airports where the Airports Authority could, if the Minister chose to make an order, give grants for soundproofing of dwellings to those living near the airports concerned. The whole House will agree that when making his statement to the House in March this year, the Minister of Aviation made a fundamental change of principle in this matter, a change of principle which cannot simply by itself be allowed to go through. The changes that have been made as a result of the Minister's decision have far-reaching effects, some of which I hope to examine.
Hon. Members will be aware that the soundproofing of private dwellings has been suggested as a means of alleviating the undoubted suffering that is experienced by people who live near

London Airport. During the last few years, it has become increasingly clear that the problem of aircraft noise is proving an ever-increasing burden upon an ever-increasing number of people. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen an article in Discovery for May, 1965, in which some interesting proposals were put forward for possibly reducing the annoyance from aircraft noise.
That follows up the Wilson Committee's Report on Noise, which was presented to Parliament in July, 1963. The importance of the problem of aircraft noise in relation to all other kinds of noise is shown by the fact that one-third of the Wilson Report was devoted to aircraft noise.
The Government have introduced their new Clause in a most extraordinary manner. It was introduced by a side-wind into the House of Lords without giving this House an opportunity of dealing with the matter fully at the appropriate time. Be that as it may, we shall, no doubt, have an opportunity of discussing it when the main principle of the Clause is discussed.
The Government are taking power to provide that:
If it appears to the Minister that dwellings near an aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority require further protection from noise and vibration … he may by statutory instrument make a scheme requiring the Authority to make grants towards the cost of insulating such dwellings or parts of such dwellings against noise.
Under the new Clause, the Minister may make an order if he so chooses. He has stated in the House of Commons his intention to make an order dealing with certain areas near London Airport. He has the power to make orders, if he so chooses, applying to Heathrow, as he already has done, and to Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick airports. In respect of any aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority, the Minister may make a Statutory Instrument to permit the making of grants. I do not think that he has that intention, but he has that power.
Therefore, in the new Clause the Minister has gone much further than his original statement might have led one to suppose, because a subsequent Government or Minister, even the present Minister, might, if convincing arguments were put to him, consider that the claims of Stansted, Gatwick or Prestwick were so great that it might be necessary to make special grants for those areas also for the soundproofing of dwellings. The Minister would be entitled to do that under the provisions of the Bill if the House accepts the Lords Amendment. I hope to show that this is not good enough.
When taking such wide powers as the Minister is taking in the Clause on what ground should he stop there? I shall advance the case that he should consider taking further powers, powers which he does not have to exercise if he does not choose to do so, which in years to come may be extremely valuable to succeeding Ministers of Aviation and powers that do not have to be exercised at present but which would obviate the need for legislation should a future Government decide that the noise level at other airports had reached such an intolerable pitch that it was necessary for residents in the area to be protected in the way that the Government have decided.
I am fortified in the hope that the Minister of Aviation might reconsider the matter by some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on the Report stage of the Bill in another place on 1st April. He said:
… when I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whether we had a closed mind about either the area or the amount concerned, I said that we did not have a closed mind. I pointed out to him that all that we were asking for here was an enabling power, and that the details of the schemes would be spelled out in the Statutory Instrument. It is precisely because we feel that there is a need for flexibility that we cannot accept this particular Amendment",
which had been moved for the purpose of widening the scope of the grants.
The noble Lord went on to say:
If we find that the area detailed is not the correct one, if we find that for some technical reason it ought to be extended, then it will be possible for another Statutory Instrument to be laid before the House. Similarly, with the matter of the grant, if it is found that the £200 figure is an unrealistic one, then, again, I should have thought"—
these are the important words—
it would be much more convenient to the House to consider another Statutory Instrument, rather than to have amending legislation." [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st April, 1965; Vol. 264, c. 1238–9.]
That is my view of the matter. It would be much more convenient, should the problem ever have to be tackled at other airports, that it should be done by Statutory Instrument rather than that we should have to go through the whole process of having another Bill before the House.
There is a strong case for extending this provision to local airports which are not covered by the scheme. I must here declare a personal as well as a constituency interest. I am the director of a company which has the lease of another airport which might perhaps be adversely affected if my Amendment were carried, so perhaps that interest is, in fact, a drawback. My constituency interest is obvious to the House.
It must not be thought that because the problems of London Airport are so enormous, this does not mean that the problems of other airports are not also grave. The Minister, who has the power to deal with Stansted and Prestwick, may be interested to know that during 1964, movements of aircraft at Stansted totalled


32,065. The total movements of aircraft at Prestwick were 24,089. The number at Southend was 39,103, which was much greater than the movements at either Prestwick or Stansted.
I do not pretend that our problem is as grave, because jet aircraft do not use Southend Airport and the problem is one of curbing the noise of jet aircraft. We are today making legislative provision and there probably will not be another opportunity to consider legislation in this subject for many years. I do not see why we should tackle the problem in a mean-spirited fashion if it can be done otherwise.
I hope that hon. Members have had an opportunity to study where the movements of aircraft take place. I have with me a remarkable and revealing document concerning the number of aircraft movements at other airports. Birmingham, for example, has over 40,000 movements a year and it is not covered by the Bill. At Edinburgh, Turnhouse, which is not covered by it, had 42,004 movements in 1964. Manchester had 45,000. There are others also with a large number of aircraft movements.
If, by an unlucky chance, I fail to persuade the Minister, I dare say that it will be on grounds of impracticability rather than of broad principle, because I am sure that as an honourable man he would not dispute that if an equal problem arose at another airport, it should be treated equally as people who live near London Airport are to be treated.
I shall, therefore, say a few words about how, surprising though it may seem and surprising as it may be to the Minister, who did not have this in mind, such a scheme as I suggest would not work too badly. First, however, let me say that for many years we in Southend have had the problem of airport noise. In 1954, my predecessor led a deputation to the Minister who was concerned with aviation—I think, the Minister of Transport—conveying a petition with 20,000 signatures concerning the problem of airport noise which existed at that time in Southend. I myself have been a member of deputations to Service Departments to try to persuade them to change some of the flying regulations which existed then and which exist now. What we have to consider is what is to be the policy in future.
8.0 p.m.
Southend is in the remarkable position of being a very densely populated area near an airport with many aircraft movements. As everyone knows, this has produced obvious problems, problems of noise and safety and others which must be met when considering the inhabitants of Leigh-on-Sea and Westcliffe-on-Sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will deploy the case of those in his constituency who are equally affected, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
But Southend has a problem slightly different from those of most other airports. Who knows what might happen in 10 or 15 years? Who knows whether the day will come when jets will be regularly using Southend Airport?

Mr. Bernard Braine: God forbid.

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but who knows? At this stage, such a possibility cannot be ruled out. Who knows what will happen to the noise level at Southend or any of the other airports which I have listed?
From the Lords Amendment it will be seen that the Minister is giving the Authority the power to deal with the grant position. The Minister will make a Statutory Instrument saying that in such and such an area the Authority can have a scheme for making grants. The Minister himself will make the scheme in the Statutory Instrument specifying the areas in which the dwellings will have to be situated and the persons to whom the grants can be paid and the rate at which they can be paid.
By a fortunate chance, as their Lordships have been very wise to provide, under subsection (4) he is also the person who may authorise or require local authorities to act as agents of the authority in dealing with applications for and the payment of grants, and he may provide for the making by the Authority of payments to local authorities in respect of anything done by them as such agents.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there might be a scheme, should the need arise—and I am not saying that it has arisen yet—by which the Authority could make payments to local authorities authorising them to act as


agents in this matter not only for London Airport, but for the airports which the Authority itself does not control. I do not see why that is absolutely impossible. Indeed, it may be an extremely good idea. After all, in their wisdom their Lordships have said that a scheme may make different provision in respect of different areas or different circumstances and that it might be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme.
There is plenty of scope for initiative in this matter. The Minister is known as a man of initiative and of energy in applying his mind to this and many other problems. He is not afraid of controversial decisions. He must not shirk this duty of trying to widen the scope of the Bill to meet the case which I am advancing. It is not impossible that in 10 or 15 years, unless other action is taken—and if other action is planned, perhaps we can be told about it—we will have a situation in which the inhabitants of areas near other airports will be as aggrieved as those who now live near London Airport.
I am one of those who believe that airports in this country will grow and that there will be more airports—I hope so. I think that there will be more air travel. Unless there is effective research into aircraft noise, it will be a continually growing problem. Of course, research is going on and a great deal of good work is probably being done, but the end is not yet in sight. No ray of hope for the inhabitants of areas near airports has yet been produced.
I must tell the Minister that my constituents were not at all happy to hear that he had been to hear supersonic booms a few weeks ago, booms which might affect them and other people living near airports. There is great and growing concern about aircraft noise. I need hardly pray in aid the Wilson Committee on noise because hon. Members know it very well. In paragraph 243 there is ample evidence that aircraft noise causes much annoyance.
I commend to the Minister paragraph 333 of that Report from which I will quote just two sentences. They are:
It is essential that the lessons of Heathrow should be applied at other airports. The important lesson is that, as the noise extends far beyond the physical perimeter of the airport, the environs must be as carefully planned

as the airport itself if serious nuisance is to be avoided.
There are places where it is too late and where there is already a great deal of residential accommodation near airports, but I hope that the Minister will hold out some hope that he is prepared to extend or to consider extending these provisions—and tonight is his last chance. I hope that he will accept my Amendment so that other airports will be covered by the Bill should the need arise.
I do not think that the Minister will be giving much away if he accepts my Amendment. After all, he would not have to make a scheme and no one would be compelling him to do so. He might not have to make the scheme for many years, but the powers would be there and we would be saved the necessity of having other legislation to deal with the matter, other legislation which would waste the time of the House. Governments are reluctant to bring forward legislation if they can avoid it when there are so many other pressing issues about which they wish to legislate.
My proposal would give a future Government a loophole to make grants if necessary. The grants would not be compulsory or mandatory in any way. All the Minister would have to do would be to make a scheme which would be subject to annulment. He would not be losing much if he took this power and extended the scope of the Bill in a way which he did not at first intend. When he first introduced the Bill, he did not intend to have grants for sound proofing, but when the Bill reached another place he showed that he was willing to have second thoughts about these matters.
I hope that the House will agree with me that if noise should reach an unacceptable pitch near airports other than London, any Government prepared to make grants for sound proofing for those who live near London Airport would be morally bound to take the same powers to make grants for the other airports similarly affected. I do not see why the Government should not take these necessary powers. If the evil does not arise, the powers need not be used and the Government would lose nothing. However, they would gain a great deal of good will, especially from my constituents, if they accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Braine: I am very glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) who has advanced a powerful and compelling argument for his Amendment. He referred to an airport on the boundaries of his constituency. It is true that it is known as Southend Airport, but, alas, it is in my constituency. If his constituents are sometimes perturbed by the noise which is inseparable from the operation of a busy airport, so are mine. I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that the indignation of my constituents is all the greater in that they have no democratic control over the owner of Southend Airport, namely, the Corporation of the County Borough of Southend-on-Sea.
I entirely agree with their Lordships' Amendment. It seems to me to be a most timely and reasonable provision. Those who live near London Airport, or who have airports in or near their constituencies, know only too well the effect that persistent aircraft noise can have on many people, especially at night, particularly those who sleep lightly or who suffer from some nervous trouble or ill-health. Hon. Members will recall that Prospero's Island was "full of noises" but they at least were of a kind "to give delight and hurt not". Unhappily, our island today is full of hurtful and maddening noises. In fact, noise has become a major social problem and nowhere does it cause greater nuisance and greater distress than in neighbourhoods bordering on airports.
There are people—and I am not looking at anyone in particular—who say that we have to learn to live with noise, that it is part of the price that we have to pay for technological progress. One reason why I am on my feet this evening is that I refuse to accept that. It is a wholly unacceptable doctrine which holds that technical progress justifies a deterioration in the living standards of some of our fellow citizens.
Noise can and must be reduced, and where, in the case of an airport, this is particularly difficult—both my hon. Friend and I concede that it is difficult—it seems only right that remedial measures should be provided, and that those who cause the noise should contribut to those measures. I thoroughly endorse the steps which have been taken in this regard.
The Wilson Committee did not mince its words with regard to London Airport. My hon. Friend quoted from its Report, and I propose to quote a further passage where the Committee said:
We are agreed that the noise to which many people near London Airport are subjected is more than they can reasonably be expected to tolerate …. people should be given grants to help them make life more tolerable for themselves, at least indoors.
I like those last words, "at least indoors".
In short, the Committee argued that where people lost an amenity through no fault of their own, someone should compensate them, someone should help them. I think it is a thoroughly sound principle that those who cause the noise, and in the process profit from it, should contribute to that compensation. By accepting that principle at London Airport, the Government have created a precedent of interest and importance to all who dwell near a busy airport, and that includes airports which are not covered by the Bill.
Why should a wholly acceptable Amendment proposed by their Lordships be restricted to the four international aerodromes which are to be vested in the new Authority? In what way is a nuisance to householders so much greater at Gatwick or Stansted than for those who live at Rochford and Southend, or how much greater is the nuisance at Gatwick and Stanstead now than it may be at Southend in a few years' time?
No doubt one could measure the nuisance in decibels. There are scientific methods of computing these matters. A Member of Parliament could measure them in terms of the complaints that he receives in his postbag, or by the number of cases of illness known to the local authorities to have been aggravated by noise. As my hon. Friend said, Southend is now one of the busiest airports in the country. I cannot say whether it is the third largest airport, but it is certainly one of the busiest in the country, and is not going to grow any less busy.
The noise there has been a major source of irritation to my constituents for many years. In 1959 I had occasion to raise the problem of a school which stands in the approach funnel, or the


public safety zone I think it is called, of the Southend Airport. I went to the school to present the annual prizes, and had to break off my speech every now and again because of the noise of aircraft overhead.
As I told the House on 9th November, 1959:
The main school is within 800 yards of the north-east-south-west runway of Southend Airport. This means that the school is within what the Ministry of Aviation calls the approach funnel to the airport or the public safety zone. It means also that every 15 minutes of the school's working day an aircraft takes off or comes in directly over the school building, making teaching difficult and sometimes intolerable for both staff and pupils. I know this myself, because I have attempted to speak in the school at such a time with aircraft overhead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 163.]
The House may not remember that, but my constituents have reason to remember it because as a result of raising the matter here we got a new school. On that occasion the principle was recognised that if intolerable conditions were created the community had to make the necessary adjustment and had to find the necessary funds. Since then I have had continual complaints about aircraft noise.
8.15 p.m.
Some years ago when Southend Corporation applied for an extension of the existing runway, the application was strongly opposed not only by the Rochford Rural District Council, which is in my constituency, but by every conceivable organisation—parish councils, ratepayers' organisations, and so on—in the area on the ground that there was already a serious noise nuisance, and that any extension would increase it.
At a representative gathering called by the council in December, 1961, it was resolved
That no further extension of the existing runways or the construction of new runways should be permitted at Southend Airport, Rochford and that any attempt to carry out such works should be resisted by every possible means.
In the evidence that was adduced at the time it was contended that the existing noise arising from the airport was particularly detrimental to the health and wellbeing of aged parsons resident in the district. It was said:

It is understood that there are frequent cases arising in the Rochford Hospital and Connaught House where patients and inmates display visible signs of distress caused by aircraft noise.
Only two days ago the chairman of the local council wrote to me saying that people in the district were still worried about this problem. I am not complaining about the way in which the airport is managed. It is extremely competently managed, and I am sure that the commandant and airport staff do everything that is humanly possible to minimise the noise that is caused. Nor do I wish to dissent in any way from what my hon. Friend said about the fact that we have airports here and that they are likely to grow. I hope that we shall have many more of them, so that the traffic can be more widely spread.

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend that the corporation and the airport manager in particular take the most detailed trouble to deal with any complaints that arise, and do their best to minimise them as far as they can.

Mr. Braine: I have no responsibility for Southend Corporation, but I agree wmth what my hon. Friend has said about the airport staff. After all, if my constituents complain, they do so to the Rochford Rural District Council, or to the airport commandant, or to me. I make no complaint on that score. I merely say that the nuisance at Southend is considerable, that it is growing, and that the Minister should have the same discretion to make an order as in the case of the four airports named in the Bill.
I do not think that there is anything more that I can say. My hon. Friend deployed the argument in considerable depth. His Amendment would secure what we want. It would meet the complaints of my constitutents. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Minister has a reputation for imagination and courage. I hope that he will give up to it tonight and give us some hope that the present illogical position is something that he cannot accept and that he will, on the contrary, accept our Amendment to their Lordships' Amendment.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I support the Amendment to the Amendment for a number of


reasons. The main one arises from aircraft movements, which are not studied by this House or by the country as much as they should be, and which throw a grave doubt upon the whole idea behind the Airports Authority. As the Minister knows, the figures of aircraft movements—taken in this instance in relation to noise—have been quoted by my hon. Friend as being 39,000 in the case of Southend, 45,000 in respect of Manchester and 40,000 in respect of Birmingham, in one year. In the case of Prestwick, however—and it is one of the few aerodromes named in the Bill—the number of movements per year is only 24,000.
Surely that shows that we are getting a little out of gear and that the construction of our ideas in the Bill is a little outdated. We ought not to think simply in terms of aircraft movements which are brought out by the question of noise. No one in the House—least of all the Minister—will contest the evils which can arise from aircraft noise.
My hon. Friend has made an effective case for the mitigation of the noise factor. The Minister has acknowledged it by the Order in respect of London Airport. No one who has been to Kennedy Airport, in New York, and stayed overnight in the first-rate international airport hotel, which is effectively insulated against jet noise, can fail to understand how efficient proper soundproofing can be, at what is clearly reasonable expense, in respect of double windows, and so on.
My hon. Friend is on the right lines in suggesting a broadening of the powers of the Minister in respect of his rather belated application. It is belated. It should never have come from the other place. It should have been thought of in the first place by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and introduced in this House, where we could have amended it and produced it in a proper form. That having been said, it is a good Amendment, which is made better by my hon. Friend's Amendment to it, which broadens the whole area in which these grants can be made and the powers of the Authority in making its decisions.
I suggest that the Minister should think very hard about my hon. Friend's

Amendment. The Minister has been convicted, rightly, of dilatoriness in introducing the concept of noise in the Bill. He is an honourable and sensible Minister, and I am sure that he will admit the strength of my hon. Friend's argument and be prepared to accept his advice, deleting the words suggested from the excellent Amendment of their Lordships.

Mr. William Shepherd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on his ingenuity in producing an Amendment to the Lords' Amendment which is acceptable to the Chair—an achievement in which I have dismally failed, although I thought that my Amendment was most elegantly drawn.
I welcome the Lords' Amendment. It would be churlish of any hon. Member on this side of the House to do anything which would restrain hon. Members opposite from carrying out at least one or two of their election promises, however dubious the occasion was upon which this promise was made and however doubtful the method by which it is achieved. I share my hon. Friend's view that it was highly improper to bring the Amendment in in the House of Lords in this form, making our task in dealing with the matter extremely difficult.
The Government have seen fit to carry out this promise at the expense of the Authority. I do not know whether the Authority will have enough money to do what the Government have shouldered upon it. The Government have carried out their electoral pledge not at their own expense, but at the expense of others. That is another unsatisfactory aspect of the matter.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West about the risk to his constituents.

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to hear about that.

Mr. Shepherd: I thought that the maximum risk to his constituents occurred many years ago, when I took one or two lessons in flying from Southend Airport. I do not think that anything quite as bad has since overtaken the worthy citizens of that area. It is true that the mere quoting of aircraft movements can be deceptive. The movement of Austers is not likely to disturb


the sleep of the most sensitive, and when we consider whether there should be an extension of the facilities, as suggested in the Lords' Amendment, we must bear in the mind the nature of the movements which take place in other areas.
I am concerned not about Southend, which has much to commend it, but about Ringway Airport, which is an international airport and where the conditions are much nearer those obtaining at Heathrow than any other airport in the country. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the number of movements at Manchester is very few in comparison with those at Heathrow. In terms of major movements of civil airline traffic, they are only one-fifth, on average, of the movements at Heathrow, Nevertheless, we must remember that Heathrow has a number of runways—I think that there are six—whereas at Manchester, as those who have caught the crosswinds know to their sorrow, there is only one.
Although Manchester Airport has only one-fifth, of the commercial movements of Heathrow, nevertheless it has roughly the same proportion of runways. Therefore, the burden which falls on the people living in the area of Manchester Airport is perhaps proportionately almost as high as that at Heathrow.
It is also true to say that this burden will, in the relatively near future, increase because there are two matters affecting the activities at Manchester which will cause even more concern to my constituents. First, there is the proposal to reduce the angle of glide from 3 per cent. to 2½ or 2 ¾ per cent. which will certainly increase the noise level. Secondly, the one runway is at present in the process of extension. When this is completed, aircraft fully loaded will take off from Ringway and cause much more inconvenience and noise in the area.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is making the argument, I think, that because there is only a single runway at Ringway in use and a large number of runways in use at Heathrow the noise and nuisance caused in the glide path area is only about the same. Will he accept it from me that this is not the case, because his argument depends upon the assumption that all the runways at Heathrow are in fairly equal use and that

therefore the burden is spread fairly widely? One runway is mostly in use and, therefore, people in that area suffer a very large percentage of the total nuisance.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that point had not escaped me, but I considered it hardly necessary to elaborate it.
I was saying that in the next month or so there will be developments at Ringway which will render this airport less acceptable to the immediate residents. Therefore it is highly desirable that my hon. Friend's Amendment be accepted so that this problem at Ringway might be dealt with.
To my mind, Ringway is now a very fine airport, very efficiently managed by Mr. Harvey, the director. It is probably one of the best airports in Europe, apart from Heathrow. The houses in the area, particularly at the Heald Green end, come into very close proximity indeed with the runway. It is proposed, by altering the angle of glide, to bring aircraft into even closer proximity to the houses. Therefore, my constituents have much more to be concerned about even than my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West.
May I say this in their defence. On the whole, the residents, particularly those in the Heald Green area, have not been unduly carping and demanding in their criticisms and complaints. The manner in which they have complained has been extraordinarily restrained because they realise that, however inconvenient aircraft movements may be, they are inseparable from progress, and they do not wish to put their own personal convenience in the way of legitimate progress. It is, nevertheless, the case that they are put to very grave inconvenience indeed. In particular, the schools in the glide path are seriously affected. These people are as justified as any residents in the Heathrow area in wishing to be brought within the ambit of the Bill.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will accept the Amendment. I doubt whether he is as imaginative, far-seeing and honourable as my hon. Friends have made out. We shall see in a very short time whether he is. I am prepared, at any rate for a few moments, to give him the benefit of the


doubt, whatever my feelings may be about the matter.

Mr. Stonehouse: This has been a delightful debate in anticipation of some of the points which may be raised on the main Amendment. But I like very much what I taste as hors d'œuvres, because it means that hon. Members opposite who were unable, or perhaps unwilling, to persuade the last Administration to do something about ameliorating the noise and nuisance around airports are now only too delighted that the Lords have suggested the Amendment and that we are considering it tonight. I am glad to discern their support for what is undoubtedly a very considerable breakthrough. This is a very important advance.
I agree with all the points which have been made about noise at airports being a nuisance to those who reside in the areas concerned. But I say this to the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney). The difference between us on this side and the former Ministers who were responsible for this matter is that the present Ministers are prepared to do something about it, whereas the Ministers in the last Administration, whom the hon. and gallant Member supported, were not prepared to act. If there is to be any blame, the delay in bringing this forward is because hardly any work was done in preparation for the scheme in advance of the election, and we had to start almost from scratch.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who made a very persuasive and attractive speech. It was a very good constituency speech, and all those in Southend concerned about airport noise will appreciate it. The hon. Member used the opportunity to quote liberally from the report of the Wilson Committee. I will quote one of the key paragraphs from that Report, because I believe that it will help him to explain to his constituents why it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment which he put forward. I quote from paragraph 319 on page 79 of the Report where it says:
In our view these arguments"—
that is against paying a grant—
are outweighed by those for paying a grant. The situation at Heathrow is, itself, unpre-

cedented. The noise in the residential areas close to the Airport is the worst known in this country, and the people who suffer from it have no right of legal action to secure its abatement. Also, a grant for improving sound insulation is more ain to a house improvement grant than to compensation for living in a noisy area. We accordingly recommend that grants should be paid towards the cost of improving the sound insulation of existing houses near Heathrow Airport.
The Wilson Committee spent a great deal of time on its Report, and we are all appreciative of the tremendous job it did. The Committee did not consider that the noise at any other airport warranted this sort of proposal. That is why, as the Minister made clear in his statement on 10th March, at this stage we are concerned to do something about the noise at Heathrow about which the Committee was concerned.

Mr. Braine: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman's argument more powerful if the powers being taken in the Bill did not extend beyond Heathrow, but they include Stansted, Prestwick and Gatwick. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) nor I was asking that the Minister should immediately pay out, or cause to be paid out, grants for other airports. A case would have to be established. We were asking that just as has taken powers—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech on an intervention.

Mr. Braine: I accept that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would withdraw the argument he has advanced about powers being taken to extend the provision to airports other than Heathrow since the Bill already covers three other airports? Why not extend it further where a case can be made?

Mr. Stonehouse: I was about to go on to that.
One of the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, West was that we should avoid coming back to this House again and again to ask for more approval. That is why we are proposing the use of Statutory Instruments. The Minister can still take conditions into account if noise increases at other airports for which the Airports Authority will be responsible. That is why there


is an Amendment on the Notice Paper which we are to consider shortly and why it is drafted in the way in which it appears. It is in order to anticipate that, perhaps in a few years' time the Minister may wish to make a Statutory Instrument in regard to another airport.
The hon. Member for Southend, West quoted from speeches made in another place and I wish to say that the comment on the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in another place was entirely in accord with how we approached this. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the very fine job which the noble Lord did in helping to guide this Bill through another place. The position as he stated it is exactly right. If the Minister finds that another airport under the Airports Authority is creating the same sort of nuisance as that at Heathrow, to which the Wilson Committee referred as being unprecedented and excessive, the Minister will be able to make an Order in regard to that airport.
I want to come to the fundamental reason why this Amendment is unacceptable. What the hon Member for Southend, West and his hon. Friends are suggesting is that the British Airports Authority should accept responsibility for paying and administering grants—presumably the financial responsibility as well—to airports which do not come under the Authority. They are putting forward the point of view that, because of the noise at Southend Airport, the Airports Authority should pay grants to householders around Southend Airport. Surely anybody in a reasonable state of mind can see that this is quite unacceptable. How could we ask the Airports Authority, which is responsible for four international airports, to accept the responsibility and the possibly very considerable financial cost of paying grants to householders around every other airport in the country where this noise grows?
I accept that it is up to the Minister to make a Statutory Instrument, but I will ask hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind that if we were to accept this form of words, it would lead to considerable confusion. Many municipalities which are responsible for airports would be confused as to their relationship with the new Airports Authority which is about

to be set up, and the Airports Authority itself would not have a clear-cut line of responsibility. The possibility is that it would have to accept at some time in the future—merely as a result of the Minister deciding that the noise at Southend and Ringway had increased—responsibility for those airports.
I ask the House to resist this Amendment because we cannot possibly ask the Airports Authority to accept financial responsibility for sound insulation around other airports than those for which it is directly responsible. I agree with many of the points which were made about the noise and the nuisance around many airports in Britain. This, of course, includes the municipal airports which have been referred to. I ask hon. Gentlemen to get the matter in perspective at this time. Of course, in the future, the position at Southend and at Ringway may become more serious. The number of movements at Heathrow is now about 175,000 per year, and of that number, about 20,000 are jets. No other airport in Britain approaches even a third of that figure. Therefore, it is quite obvious—we have to be realistic—that what we are considering now will apply, in the first stage, only to Heathrow.
While we are doing this, however, we feel that it is advisable to give the Minister power to introduce Statutory Instruments in regard to other airports under the Airports Authority. It would be too confusing and, I think, quite unfair to expect the Airports Authority to start trying to bring in provisions for all the other airports in Britain. When this is done, if it has to be, it will have to be done under a separate Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. David Price: Of course, we have great sympathy with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in their attempt to limit the sceme to Heathrow. We would agree that the Wilson Committee made a very clear case, in the paragraph which the Parliamentary Secretary quoted to the House, of the very exceptional circumstances at Heathrow. I should not have thought that my hon. Friends could disagree with it.
The point where, with respect, the Parliamentary Secretary has got himself into a little difficulty in his argument


arises out of the procedure used to effect this desirable result of enabling grants to be made for soundproofing in the Heathrow area. The Bill, and the Amendment to which we will be coming shortly, enables the Authority to pay the grants to Heathrow by virtue of giving it power to do this to the other three airports as well.
Once the Parliamentary Secretary and his noble Friend deployed the argument that we must be flexible and that we could not tell whether in future the noise level reached within the general area of Heathrow might not also apply to some other airports, it becomes extremely difficult for the argument of the Government to defend the limitation to the three other airports which come within the province of the Bill.
I have considerable sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that it would be rather distorting the purpose of the Authority to ask it to be empowered to pay grants to provincial airports over which it will not have the full range of competence, compared with its competence over the four airports named in the Bill. I accept that, but, equally, the Minister must recognise that tagging on to a Bill which had already left this House this procedure to enable the Government to empower the Authority to deal with the problem of Heathrow causes the difficulty that looked at morally, once one goes further than Heathrow and talks about giving legislative powers to the Government of the day to extend it if the case should arise, then it is extremely difficult, certainly morally, to argue that the provision should be limited to the other three international airports.
One might expect a far higher incidence of large, powerful jets landing at these airports, but we have had ample evidence supplied by my hon. Friends to show that in some provincial airports, with the extension of internal flying—and I know that the Minister and the majority of hon. Members hope to see an extension of the use of aircraft in this country—if flexibility is the reason for including the three other international airports, it is difficult to see why it should be limited in that way.
Having said that, I think that some of my hon. Friend will agree with the Minister and the Wilson Committee that the case for Heathrow is, as of now, overwhelmingly greater than that at any other airport. However, that does not mean that that will indefinitely be so. After all, is that not the argument which the Government claim justifies them in including the three other airports?
The House finds itself in this difficulty due to the procedure followed by the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this perfectly desirable aim. It is a pity that it was not possible to have a short enabling Bill. I appreciate that it is difficult for Parliamentary time to be obtained. Leaders of the House always say that it is difficult, however desirable the aim, to find Parliamentary time. This applies even when a Minister asks for time. However, had an enabling Measure been produced, the House would have had a better opportunity to discuss this issue, as well as the other points which will be raised on the important Amendment to which we will be coming shortly. Meanwhile, I am inclined to think that we must accept the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment, put and agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 10, after "areas", insert "which shall include glide-paths".
Before proceeding it might be helpful if I explain what a glide-path is. It is the angle—at the moment, of 3 degrees—of approach of an aircraft, in this case London Airport, to the threshold of the runway. Lest there be confusion from a reading of my Amendment, I should, perhaps, underline that it relates to dwellings beneath the glide-path. I am not implying that there are dwellings on the glide-path itself.
As has already been indicated—from extracts from the Wilson Report and otherwise—a great deal of misery and unhappiness is caused to hundreds of thousands of people living around London Airport, not just in the airport vicinity, but also in a larger area around Heathrow. The Richmond division of Surrey, which I have the honour to represent, has


most of its area under the direct line of the main and most-used glide-path into London Airport. The constituency consists of Petersham, Kew, Ham, Barnes, Mortlake and East Sheen.
All this area, particularly Barnes and Sheen, is beneath the glide-path into London Airport and the centre of my constituency is exactly 7½ miles from the threshold of No. 5 and No. 1 runways of London Airport. Aircraft tend to turn from both the Watford stack and the Epsom stack on to the glide-path over approximately Hammersmith Bridge, but occasionally they drift to the South and turn over the constituency of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who I am pleased to see in his place.
My reason for moving the Amendment is to discover why the soundproofing grants are not also to apply to dwellings in the area beneath the glide-path. Why should they stop in the areas as detailed in the statement made in the House of Commons on 10th March by the Minister, before the New Clause was attached to the Bill in another place?
It might be helpful at this stage if I say something about the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary, who rather implied that the previous Government had done nothing at all about this matter. I know a little about this subject, because I have been battling over it ever since elected to the House of Commons. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that so far no Government has done nearly enough about this matter, but it is unfair for him to imply that the last Government did nothing at all. As I shall later detail, they took some important action.
What are the reasons for the present sudden outburst of enthusiasm on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to assist in eliminating or reducing aircraft noise round London Airport? I may, of course, be wrong, but I cannot help feeling that it stems from a speech, no doubt an excellent speech, made by the present Prime Minister at an election meeting on 1st October, 1964, when he made some very strong and very formidable pledges. Those pledges were reported in the Financial Times of 2nd October, 1964.
I mention the Financial Times, because this is the newspaper to which the Prime

Minister himself referred when questioned on the subject in the House. He implied that some of the other reports were not, perhaps, 100 per cent. accurate, but that the Financial Times report was. This is an important matter, because when the Prime Minister made his speech as reported in the Financial Times he did not indicate that there was any restriction to the area where sound-proofing should apply round London Airport. His pledge was that the area affected by noise from the airport—

Mr. Dudley Smith: It also happened that there were three or four marginal seats in the area.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities were pressing the previous Government for the sound-proofing of private houses long before my right hon. Friend made that speech at Isleworth—and what was done?

Mr. Royle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they were pressing and that the previous Government did nothing about it. My only point is that the sudden spurt of activity on the part of hon. Members opposite seems to have emanated—though perhaps my impression is wrong—from the Prime Minister's speech at that election meeting. That is by the way, but in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's earlier comment I just make the point.
I warmly congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his efforts on this issue. He set about trying to find a means of providing sound-proofing for houses round London Airport. Whilst I am at present marginally dissatisfied with him, for not having gone wider, if he were able to accept my Amendment there would be no marginal disapproval from me at all. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary's effort has largely resulted in the ideas we have seen incorporated in the new Clause. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not allowed to make the statement himself, but I am glad to see that he is handling this stage of the Bill tonight.
There are a number of reasons why the areas beneath the glide-path into London Airport should be included within the terms of reference of the Authority. On


9th December, 1964, I asked the Minister of Aviation whether
… he will give an assurance that he does not intend to lower the glide path into London (Heathrow) Airport below an angle of three degrees.
Here we come back to the three degree angle about which we shall hear again and again this evening.
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
I am not at present proposing to lower the glide path below its present angle of three degrees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 196.]
I view the words "at present" with some consternation, as they seem to indicate that at some future date he might well consider lowering the angle from three degrees to two and a half degrees, which would immediately have a very bad effect on people living beneath the glide-path itself.
I want to emphasise the importance of maintaining the three degrees. Such an angle at present puts an aircraft at a height of 2,000 ft. over the East Sheen cross roads, in the centre of my constituency, and it means that aircraft join the glide path at Hammersmith Bridge, where they turn on to it from the stacks at Watford and Epsom, at about 2,500 ft. Decreasing the angle will immediately bring a great amount of noise distress to people as far out as Putney, I believe, and certainly in Barnes. It would mean that aircraft would traverse my constituency, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) at a much lower height.
9.0 p.m.
It is, therefore, very important that the three degree glide-path is maintained. The tact that the Parliamentary Secretary in that Answer indicated that this was at present the plan makes one feel that if, at some future time, there was an alteration in the angle it would become even more vital to include in the provision for sound-proofing residential dwellings beneath it.
I now want to refer to the action taken by the Ministry of Aviation in the past to help to relieve the noise problem. Hon. Members on both sides have been battering at Minister for many years on this score. The first thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) did was to set up a system of

height checks on the glide-path coming into the airport. That checking system was set up in 1960. The very fact that the Minister agreed to it not only showed that the Government were prepared to do something, but that the Ministry was prepared to acknowledge that there was a great deal of noise which caused a great deal of dissatisfaction and discomfort to people below the glide path itself.
I pay tribute to the amount of hard work done by people in the Ministry. Members of the Department have put in a lot of work and have always received complaints with great sympathy and care, from the general public and Members of the House. Evidence of the fact that they have taken this trouble was given recently when an aircraft noise van from the Department's public relations section visited my constituency.
More important is the fact that the Department has agreed, after a lot of discussion, to shift the amber airway farther over to the east. I have pressed the Ministry to do this for some time. Now it has done it to make certain that aircraft arriving from the Watford and Epsom stacks can join the glide-path at 2,500 ft. or more. The amber airway at the moment is fairly close to the area where aircraft turn in on to the beginning of the glide-path. This means that congestion develops as aircraft swing in from the two stacks. The very fact that the Ministry has agreed to shift the airway, which is a big operation involving the resiting of several beacons and costing quite a sum of money, shows that it has recognised that a great nuisance was being caused, not only 7½ miles out, which I indicated earlier, but 9 miles out, where the aircraft turned to join the glide-paths into London Airport. The Department understands, sympathises and knows the discomfort suffered by residents beneath the glide-path.
There is another matter which I would like to mention, connected with the height checks of aircraft on the glide-path. I received this morning from the public relations section of the Department a list of the aircraft monitored approaching London Airport and the percentage of infringements. I was interested to see that, in 1962, 1,372 aircraft were monitored approaching London Airport, of which 1·9 per cent. infringed the height regulation—in other words, were below


the 3-degree glide path. In 1963, there were 1,948 aircraft monitored of which only 0·9 per cent. infringed the regulations. During the whole of last year 1,038 aircraft were monitored of which 0·3 per cent. infringed the regulations.
This was impressive, but if one looks more carefully at the figures, it will be seen that whereas 1,300 aircraft were monitored in 1962 and 1,900 in 1963, only just over 1,000 were monitored in 1964. There may be a good reason for this, but I should be grateful if we could be told why there has been this significant drop in the numbers of aircraft monitored on the glide-path over this period. Members of the public tend to think that a certain amount of jiggery pokery goes on with these figures. I do not think that this is so.
I have made careful inquiries. I think that the dedication and effort put into it by members of the Department, both at London Airport in working the P.A.R.s in doing the height checking, were effective. I have been to see them at work. On one occasion I took representatives of my two local papers with me. We were impressed by the effort they put into it and by the skill with which they were checking the height of aircraft.
I come to the Parliamentary Secretary's letter to me, dated 18th March, 1965. I am sorry to keep pillorying the Parliamentary Secretary, but he clearly has to bear the burden of answering my many tiresome letters on this important subject. I was glad to read his final paragraph, which, I thought, was very good:
I should end by assuring you and your constituents that we are not in the least callous about this problem. We recognise that a good deal of disturbance is caused by aircraft and we are constantly seeking ways of making life a little quieter for people who live round airports.
Tonight, the Parliamentary Secretary has an opportunity to make life a little quieter for those who live beneath the glide-path by accepting the Amendment.
I come now to the real crunch of the Minister's statement earlier this year and to the importance of including the glide-path in the Department's proposals. I refer to the Wilson Report. It has always struck me that it is possible to find parts of the Report which happily agree with the suggestions which people might be putting forward, some of them diametri-

cally opposed, but I have found parts of the Report which support the case that I am making tonight that glide-path areas should be included.
I ask the House to turn to paragraph 321 of the Report. I am coming on now to deal with this strange new method of indicating noise called N.N.I.—noise and number index. The Wilson Report contains at the end a map showing the various areas where the numbers of N.N.I. applied. They varied from the airport boundaries to quite long distances away. Paragraph 321 makes this point:
The noise and number index is the obvious criterion to be applied in deciding which householders should be eligible for a grant. There is, however, abundant evidence that personal factors have great influence on the degree of annoyance which is induced by the noise. Thus, the social survey showed that while there are some people seriously disturbed at all levels of exposure in the area covered by the survey, there are also many—about 30 per cent. of the adult population—who are unconcerned by the noise, whatever its level. We know too, that the demand for houses near the airport is high. The level of exposure to noise, as expressed by the noise and number index, cannot therefore equitably serve as the sole criterion for a grant, though it must be a main qualification.
This indicates that there are other aspects which may be taken into account, aspects such as I have indicated this evening. Paragraph 304 of the Report suggests that the N.N.I. should be applied to the areas where sound-proofing on dwellings should take place.
The right hon. Gentleman said this in the House on 10th March, in reply to a question from me:
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. A. Royle) mentioned the Parliamentary Secretary, who has paid particular attention to this problem. I believe that the solution that I have announced will go a good way towards alleviating the problem for those living within the 55 Noise Number Index contour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 416.]
What the Wilson Report says about this in paragraph 304 is rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman indicated in his statement. It says:
The range 50 to 60 NNI, which we suggest in paragraph 302 as the critical range above which annoyance becomes intolerable, refers to aircraft flying during the day. People are much more sensitive to noise at night than to noise during the day.
The Prime Minister recognised this in his speeech on 1st October, when he said that he would cut down the number of


night jet flights into London Airport and that the
survey provides some evidence, but not a great deal, regarding annoyance at night. Our tentative conclusion is that the concept of noise and number index is probably also valid for aircraft flying at night, but that the same degree of annoyance is produced at night at a NNI which is about 15–20 units less than the corresponding NNI during the day. (In other words, the critical range, which is 50–60 NNI by day, is 30–45 NNI by night.)
This is evidence that there should be an extension of the air areas as detailed by the Minister in his statement to the House on 10th March.
One sees from the map in the Report that whilst in 1961 the 50 NNI red line goes only just outside Hounslow and touches the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, if one turns the page to see what would happen in 1970 one finds that the 50 contour line goes over the river at Richmond, and if one extended the map one would certainly have the nuisance by night going out even as far as 9 miles, which is the point in which I am interested where aircraft join the glide path near Hammersmith Bridge after leaving the two stacks. This seems to me to be a most important argument for extending the areas as detailed by the Minister in his statement to the House.
I come now to what is the bitter bit as far as my constituency is concerned, and that is the actual noise from which my constituents are suffering. The cause of the noise under the glide-path is quite different from the cause of noise on the ground or on take-off. I must underline that our problem in Richmond is quite different from that around the airport or in the area of take-off. Our problem is a landing problem, because 80 per cent. of all landings at London Airport come in on the glide-path which starts near Putney and by Hammersmith Bridge.
The noise from an aircraft landing does not come from the back end of the engine, but from the front. It is the front which causes the noise that disturbs people who are below the glide-path. The longer the funnel preceding the front end the less noise, and putting silencers on the rear does not help in any way to solve the problems of those who live beneath the glide-path.
9.15 p.m.
The Comet is designed so that the funnelling entry through the wing into the front of the engine is very deep. This is why a Comet flying overhead on a glide-path is far less noisy than the Boeing 707 or the DC8 which have their engines slung below the wings with no funnel into the engine such as the Comet has. The engine is set right forward with the result that there is tremendous noise, particularly from the Boeing 707.
For this reason, I do not share the concern of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite about the effect that the Concord will have when it comes into service. For one thing, the sonic bang will not affect anyone around London Airport or anywhere else in the area with which we are concerned because the Concord will not fly at supersonic speed over London Airport. It will not begin to fly at that speed until it is well clear of the airport itself.
People near the airport may, however, be irritated by sonic bangs because there are many major airline routes over the United Kingdom and foreign airlines will, we hope, be operating the Concord. So that, over the southern half of the country, Concord aircraft may be flying at supersonic speeds and cause a certain amount of nuisance by sonic bang.
The only problem the Concord will present, in our problem under the glide-path, will come from the positioning of the engines. But I understand that the present plan is that the engines will be set well back, with quite a long funnelling in the wing, so that, for the reason I gave earlier, as the noise caused by an aircraft landing comes from the front of the engine and not the back, I do not believe that the noise of the Concord coming in to land at London Airport will be much worse than that of the 707, even though the engines themselves will be much more powerful and the aircraft slightly heavier.
There is another aspect of the noise problem, namely, the disturbance and worry which is caused particularly in schools. I have here a letter which I received a couple of years ago which expresses very strongly the feeling in schools and among people trying to carry on their daily work beneath the glide-path into London Airport. This letter came


from the education department of the Surrey County Council, in connection with the Richmond County School for Girls. The governors of the school had requested the department to write to me concerning the
frequent and serious disturbance to the work of the School caused by the excessive noise of some aircraft using London Airport.
The letter states that
The Governors themselves had an instance of the difficulty at their last meeting when the noise of an aircraft passing overhead made it impossible for them to hear the report of the Headmistress which was being given at that time.
The governors added that
It is quite impossible for teachers to continue aural lessons and the necessity frequently to interrupt such a lesson must inevitably seriously disturb the concentration of the pupils. A further and equally serious problem arises especially in this and other grammar schools in that the concentration of pupils sitting for the General Certificate of Education and other examinations is disturbed.
I quoted that letter in the debate on the subject of aircraft noise on 10th November, 1961. If I received that complaint in November, 1961, the House can judge the amount of discomfort and disquiet being caused now, with the tremendous increase in the use of jets coming into London Airport over the past three years.
I have spoken for a long time, but the House will appreciate that this is a most important matter for my constituents and many thousands of people living in the area who find their lives and, I believe, even their whole attitude of mind, quite often distorted by the noise which they suffer. I am sure that the House will forgive me for having spent some time in urging acceptance of the Amendment. I have explained the reasons for my proposal to the House.
In conclusion, I wish to underline the point so that the Parliamentary Secretary is under no illusion about what I am urging. I understand that the glide-path would cover an area 9 miles out from the threshhold of the runway and would be 2 miles in width. Therefore, these proposals for the soundproofing of private dwellings would cover the areas mentioned by the Minister in his statement, a statement which was overwhelmingly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides, but, as I say, it would extend to cover the glide-path area to

which I have referred, 9 miles out and 2 miles wide.
The noise beneath the glide-path is, we all know, intolerable. The fact that it is intolerable is admitted by the hon. Gentleman's Department. The Wilson Committee confirmed that there is serious nuisance caused after dark. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary most carefully to consider the points I have put and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. A. Royle) at one point in his speech gave the impression—I am sure that he did not really intend it—that the area of nuisance did not include Putney except rather occasionally.

Mr. A. Royle: I certainly did not intend to give that impression. I tried to underline that Putney suffered very much from it and, indeed, being at the beginning of the glide-path, is an important area to be considered.

Mr. Jenkins: I am glad to receive that correction. I thought that the hon. Gentleman could not mean what I understood him to mean. Perhaps this misunderstanding only serves to emphasise how short we are of facts. All the facts ought to be known, but we do not know as much as we should, and I hope that whoever is to reply to the debate will fill some of the gaps.
One gap in our knowledge is this, Where exactly does the glide-path begin? I understand that it depends upon which of the runways is being used. I should like to know whether the northern of the southern of the two east-west run ways is most regularly in use. I suspect that it is the southern of the two which is most often used, being entered by the bulk of the aircraft coming in to London Airport after going over Putney Bridge. That certainly is the impression in Putney.
As the hon. Member has said, the point at which aircraft join the glide path is a point of acute noise. There is no doubt the people of Putney suffer considerably and are suffering increasingly from this. I do not know whether it is generally realised that whereas the Wilson Report in 1961 projected that we should reach a situation of intolerable noise by 1970, we have already reached that point in 1965. In other words, we


have anticipated numerically the development which the Wilson Committee did not expect to arrive until 1970. Therefore, we are already in that intolerable situation. What will be the reality of the situation by 1970 defies imagination.
I welcome the Amendment to the Lords Amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to accept it. I do not, however, think that either the Lords Amendment or the Amendment to it touches the fringe of the problem. As has been said of the Wilson Committee, it is rather like the Bible: all sorts of inferences can be drawn from it. One which is unmistakable is to be found in the Appendix on the subject of noise, in which the Committee said:
We have three pieces of evidence suggesting that the total annoyance caused to the population is roughly the same by day and by night.
The Committee detailed the three pieces of evidence which suggested that it was not the case that night noise is much worse than day noise.
That leads to one or two conclusions The first is that although soundproofing may help to diminish night noise at the cost of partial asphyxiation of sleepers or non-sleepers—perhaps we should call them wakers rather than sleepers in Richmond and Putney, certainly in the summer months—it will do nothing whatever to eliminate nuisance or distress which is caused to people during the day. As I have pointed out, the Wilson Report suggested that this was an equal problem.
At London Airport, about half the landings appear to take place on the northern of the two east-west runways. I should like to know what the distribution is. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, will be able to say what proportion of landings take place on the two east-west runways, how many take place on the northern runway and how many on the southern, and what is the point of joining the glide-path for the two runways. The point of joining it varies, I believe, according to whether the northern or the southern of the two runways is used. It would be helpful to know something about this.
I know that limitation on landings is something which my right hon. Friend the Minister is reluctant to impose, but he has brought himself to impose a limitation on the number of landings which take place at night. I should like him to say whether nuisance has not, in fact, reached the point, even though he may be most reluctant to contemplate it, at which we must begin to consider the possibility of limiting landings by day also.
The reason for that suggestion is another point which arises from the Wilson Report and which one knows from experience to be the case. The amount of distress rises sharply as the frequency of noise increases. Tolerance to noise declines with frequency. In other words, people become incapable of standing the noise if it is frequently repeated; and it is now being repeated at the point of the glide-path so often in the summer that a reduction in the number of landings would have considerable effect in alleviating the distress suffered by the constituents of hon. Members whose constituencies cover the area of the glide-path.
This matter has reached the point at which it is a distress to health, both physical and mental. It is appropriate that the Clause follows the previous one, which deals with the question of health. All along the glide-path this point has been reached and passed.
I do not intend to make a long intervention. Most of the things which have to be said on the Amendment have already been said. There are, however, two sorts of things which have to be done in this matter. First, there are the short-term ameliorations of the problem and, secondly, the search for a long-term answer.
9.30 p.m.
In the short term, we have to consider not only soundproofing, but an actual reduction in the number of landings, not only at night, but during the day. Other ways call for knowing a few more facts. I understand that we do not know the actual level at which aircraft join the glide-path. It has been suggested that this should be about 2,500 feet. It is widely believed that aircraft frequently join the glide-path at levels much lower than that. Sometimes sharp adjustments


of level have to be taken at the point the glide-path is joined, and it can be a distressing and noisy business when an aircraft is trying to find its right place to join the glide-path. If that could be done further out, the situation in these areas might be improved.
Those are some of the short-term things which could be done to try to ameliorate something which is very serious and which is causing distress and which is now approaching the point of physical and mental distress. The point has already been reached when not only general but individual medical evidence of this can be produced.
On the long-term solution there is no answer but to build a new international airport near the coast and ultimately to face the position—very difficult for any Government—that the long-term future of an airport in the centre of London—and this position has been faced elsewhere in the world and there is no reason why we should not do so—is as a national interchange airport connecting with an international airport which at some time we shall have to site much nearer the coast.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) about the eventual need to site London Airport on the coast. I know that there is a strong body of opinion which takes that view, but surely the whole object of London Airport being a communications centre for this great capital would be defeated if that happened. Nearly all big international airports are located within a boundary of 15 or 20 miles of the world's leading cities and if London Airport is to survive in any way as a main communications centre for London, it must remain where it is at Heathrow.
I agree that it raises very big problems. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), who moved his Amendment to the Lords' Amendment in a very lucid and detailed way. We have been discussing glide-paths, but the word is something of a misnomer. It conjures up a picture of a very graceful aircraft coming in silently, but my constituents and others who live in the area tell me that the noise is tantamount to a hurricane when aeroplanes come in to land, or when they are taking off from London Airport.
We sometimes forget that the areas affected are further spread than the immediate environs of London Airport. Most of the detailed research has been done in the constituencies of hon. Members who have dealt with and lived with this problem for many years. I see the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. A. E. Hunter) in his place. Such constituencies are seriously affected.
I represent Brentford and Chiswick, which is not a primary case, but certainly a strong secondary case. I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Putney that the impact of noise on individuals varies tremendously. Some have a very high degree of tolerance and can live and work in conditions which would drive others mad. It is by no means only people who are neurotic who write from these fringe areas to Members of Parliament to complain about aircraft noise and how it is getting them down. Many people are affected. It is a symptom of modern life and modern stresses and strains.
It would be foolish to advocate indiscriminate soundproofing, which would be far too costly and very wasteful, but there are special cases. The Parliamentary Secretary would take an important step forward if he would begin to bring into effect provisions for helping special cases over a wider area. These would be cases where people could produce medical certificates to show that they were affected by noise, institutions of learning, and buildings in which there were sick people. I have a small maternity hospital in my constituency and I should have thought that the noise incidence there was quite alarming on occasions.
We tend to overlook the fact that there is a serious noise problem away from the immediate approach to the runways. I am told by experts that a lot depends on atmospheric conditions appertaining at any one time, and also on wind levels and the actual piloting. The hon. Member for Putney said that it was all very well coming in at a certain defined angle, but if the joining point is chosen somewhere along the glide-path which affects constituencies in the outer Greater London area, one finds that often they suffer a sudden burst of noise.
Summer is always the worst time of the year for noise. Few people can tolerate sleeping without the windows open, and, therefore, they get bursts of noise. It is not just the noise of a passing aircraft. It is a frightening experience for anyone who comes up against it for the first time.
I have talked to ex-Royal Air Force pilots who have said that they have been convinced that the plane was going to come on to the roof on the house in which they were staying, and that they had been badly shaken. I know from experience in attending engagements in the area which I represent, in Hounslow Town Hall, which is now the centre of my local government area, that meetings of the council are brought to a halt by the noise of planes passing overhead. I was there on one occasion taking the Chair at a meeting of about 500 people. There was so much noise that the proceedings were held up for several seconds at a time.
Again on the question of sleep, I know that a large number of people living in the environs of London Airport do not get a proper night's sleep. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is present. He was a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, and had a well-publicised visit to London Airport a year or so ago. He spent the night at the very end of the runway, and slept like a top. I think that my hon. Friend is one of those who can sleep within the sound of gunfire, and under all sorts of conditions, but there are some people who, under those circumstances, would not have had a wink of sleep.
Mention of my hon. Friend brings me to the point that there have been one or two innuendoes that the last Government did not do very much about the question of aircraft noise. They did a great deal. I saw the atmosphere change—it had nothing to do with me—when I was in the House during the last Parliament. Ministers took a great deal of heed of the cases that we brought to their attention. We had five or six debates on the subject, and Ministers became much more stringent in their approach to dealing with pilots. Having discussed this matter with a number of pilots, I am

certain that penalties are very severe for any infringements which occur.
I know that the former Ministers were working on this the whole time, and they got a system which was second to none as regards height and noise checking. Everything possible was done, outside of sound-proofing. We are now going to consider sound-proofing, and I welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary said tonight. I have a feeling that it all rather stems from the Prime Minister's speech on 1st October last, during the election campaign. We challenged him about this afterwards. I got the impression—and I am sure that many others did, too—that aid would be over a much wider area, but we are grateful for something, and we shall be interested to see how it works out.
It would be a good idea if the hon. Gentleman could consider the special cases which are affected under the glide-path, particularly where there are nervous people, and invalids. I should like him to say how much research is going on at the moment into aircraft noise as regards engines, and also how other international airports tackle this problem. Do they give grants for the immediate area, or do they go out to the glide-paths, as we would like them to do in the London area? I am sure that the problem will increase despite the optimistic figures which are published from time to time, because there is a constant increase in the number of aircraft and in the number of flights undertaken.
I hoped that the hon. Member and his Minister would be planning, not for the lifetime of their Government, because they will not be in office, but for the next 10 or 15 years, because, as in the case of roads, it is no use trying to cope with the situation as it exists at the moment: we must remember that in 10 or 15 years' time a large number of people will be seriously affected in a vast conurbation like London.
With those remarks I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude and businesslike approach to the whole question. He can be assured that we shall be on to him the whole time in an effort to keep him up to the mark.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I rise briefly to support the arguments put forward by my two hon. Friends and


the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). The problem of what to do about noise is by no means confined to this country. In one respect it is an international problem, because it affects the Government of every country which has an international airport. All Governments which are so placed have somehow to cope with the growing problem of noise. The question is, what is to be done about it?
Clearly something must be done, but clearly, also, there is a point beyond which it is difficult to do very much. We all recognise this. In the statement made in the House on 10th March the Minister of Aviation put his case on the basis that the qualification for any grant for soundproofing rested upon the 55 Noise Number Index—that fascinating mathematical calculation of vibration to which my hon. Friend has referred. No doubt it is highly accurate and highly scientific. I admit that in a sense this is a judgment of Solomon. The line must be drawn somewhere, and if it is not drawn at 55 N.N.I. are we to draw it at 50, 54, or what? This is not a party point; it will affect every Government which has an international airport. A decision must be made as fairly as possible within the means of each affected Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) reminded the House that the Wilson Report did not say that the 55 N.N.I.—not the National Noise Indicator as some people seem to think, but the Noise Number Index—was the sole yardstick, although it may be a yardstick. The 55 N.N.I. inevitably varies according to circumstances. It can overlap areas, some of which are technically in and others which are outside. It can vary according to whether it is night or day, or whether the wind is in one direction or another, or whether the pilot of a given aircraft is slightly infringing the regulations. There is always a human element of error.
After the right hon. Gentleman made his statement to the House on 10th March I put down a Question about my constituency, which was marginally outside the area concerned, and the Answer that I received on 17th March confirmed that most of my constituency was just outside, on the basis that if 55 N.N.I. was the yardstick, most of Windsor and adjacent areas

had less than 50 N.N.I. now and would not have more than 53 N.N.I. in 1970.
Nineteen-seventy seems to be the relevant year, but as the hon. Member for Putney pointed out, although many of the Wilson Report calculations are based on 1970, those calculations, which were then thought to be on the 1970 horizon, are now on the 1965 doorstep. Therefore, we cannot just put off this matter for another five years and say, "It is all right for the time being. We will think about it again five years from now and see whether the N.N.I. has altered in any given area".
9.45 p.m.
We are dealing with human beings. I am not at all certain that the nerve system of the human race reacts with mathematical exactness according to a 55 N.N.I. In fact, I am pretty certain that it does not. The nerve system of the human race reacts to noise according to a number of circumstances quite outside the control of the airport, the pilot flying the aircraft, the Ministry of Aviation, or anybody else. It reacts according to whether the individual in question is young or old, in good health or sick, or whether he is tired or fresh. There is no absolute mathematical human reaction to the vibration on an indicator.
For an enormous number of householders in my constituency, there are times when it is quite impossible to carry on conversation with the windows open if an aircraft is flying overhead. This applies to the glide-path, too, not only on take-off. Therefore, one has to shut the windows, however hot it may be, in the middle of summer. Even then there are times when one has to give up conversation altogether. There are times when it is very inconvenient indeed and sometimes injurious to health—for instance, with illness in the home or in hospital. Difficulty is caused in schools. This inconvenience applies in all public institutions. There are times when the noise becomes well nigh intolerable. This is a fact. Whether the N.N.I. is 53, 55 or 56, I simply do not care. All that I know is that the build-up of noise from time to time is well nigh intolerable.
I ask the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to think very carefully about the points made by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Putney.


There is no party point about this. Nobody is trying to score off anybody else. This is a national problem, no matter what party is in power. Would the hon. Gentleman please think again about this matter and examine very carefully the proposal made by my hon. Friend and supported on both sides that in order to qualify for a grant for insulation, not only should the 55 N.N.I. be varied at discretion, but the glide-path should be included?

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The Government have introduced their scheme for giving grants to householders living within the 55 N.N.I. area to soundproof their dwellings against jet noise. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, being men of honour, had to do that, because in his great speech at Isleworth on 1st October, to which reference has been made, the Prime Minister made loud promises to all members of the audience that something like this would be done.
Of course, as has been said, that speech undoubtedly had an influence on the election, because it won the votes of a number of people who thought that a great deal would be done about this matter if the Labour Party was elected. I am sorry to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that, although I know that he has worked very hard on this scheme, he will not win very many votes at the next election, since although he has satisfied people within the 55 N.N.I. area, there are many people outside it who feel very dissatisfied because they will not get the grant. People living on one side of a street will get a grant and people living on the other side will not.
This area of grant comes just in my constituency, to its borders. I support the Amendment because the glide-path goes over my constituency, over Brentford, Chiswick, Richmond and the northern part of Twickenham. If the Amendment were accepted, a large number of my constituents would be brought within the area of grant.
I wish to take the argument a little further. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has assumed that the wind comes from the West. For 270 days of the year it does, and aeroplanes take off over the constituency of my hon.

Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and glide down over Richmond, Brentford, Twickenham and Hounslow into London Airport, making a great deal of noise. For 95 days of the year the wind comes from the East and on those days aeroplanes take off in the direction of the glide-path and make a great deal of noise over Twickenham and Richmond. For that reason, I wish to press for the area of the glide-path to be included.
On those 95 days and on every day on which the wind blows from the East I receive letters from my constituents—I do not get so many on the other days—and if the Amendment is accepted they will be protected. Usually, there is an easterly wind in the summer when people have the windows of their houses open at night. They are more affected then by the noise. On some days the wind can change from West to East. Aeroplanes may be taking off in the morning in a westerly direction, but in the middle of the day the wind changes, there is a gap of about 15 minutes and instead of planes stacking over Epsom they stack up over Watford and come in from the West, and take off to the East. Then the noise over my constituency, and the constituencies of my hon. Friends is tremendous.
The other day I was at the opening of the new autonomics building at the National Physical Laboratory. The Minister of Technology was unable to be present—owing, no doubt, to an important Cabinet meeting, where surcharges or other Government problems were discussed—and he sent the Parliamentary Secretary. The words of Lord Snow, in opening this building, were lost every few minutes because of aeroplanes taking off and coming in from an easterly direction. It was not the "Corridors of Power", but the corridors of the air which affected us so greatly on that occasion.
If we ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology what it is like to live in Twickenham he will know that the noise there—as no doubt the hon. Member knows as well—is severe. That is why I am adding my voice to those urging this Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted, a large number of my constituents would be brought within the area of the grant provided for sound proofing.

Mr. Stonehouse: The debate has shown that there is a considerable interest and approval for the idea of sound insulation for homes near Heathrow. The hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. A. Royle) was concerned to widen the area within the scheme which the Minister proposes to lay before the House towards the end of this year. I must say that when I first read his Amendment I thought that he was concerned to build castles in the air. I thought that he accepted that there was some imprecision in his Amendment. Indeed there is, and for that reason alone I should have to ask the House to reject it. However, I want to deal with the substance of his remarks because I know that he has for many years taken a deep personal interest in the problem of noise around Heathrow, particularly that affecting his constituency. I only wish that he had had more success than he did in persuading his colleagues in the last Administration to adopt something similar to the scheme which we now propose to the House.
Regrettably, he did not succeed in that, but we are bringing in a scheme which, I think, goes a long way to satisfying his anxiety in this respect, although it does not include his constituency. However, if he will read very carefully the wording in the new Clause, he will notice from subsection (2) that the areas below the glide-paths are not excluded, because it is possible for the Minister to specify virtually any area in which these dwellings may be situated. It is up to the Minister to determine where these would be. So if, at some time in the future, it is decided that the noise nuisance outside the area which the Minister has already specified in his statement of 10th March is serious enough to justify grants being paid for sound insulation, it would be possible for him at that time to bring in a Statutory Instrument to extend the scheme.

Mr. A. Royle: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that the situation now is serious enough for the areas which I mention in my Amendment to be included in the list of the areas of the statement on 10th March?

Mr. Stonehouse: No. We do not accept that. We accept that the Wilson Committee researches into this gave us a very good guide line for the noise nuisance around Heathrow. The hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Sir C. MottRadclyffe) made a very helpful and interesting speech. I accept that, in his constituency, there is a great deal of concern about the noise from Heathrow. He made the point that noise affects different people in different ways. What may be acceptable to one person may be quite unacceptable to another. If we follow what he was saying, it could be argued that practically every house in the United Kingdom should have some sound insulation because at some time or another an aircraft is bound to pass over that house.
Certainly in the Metropolis and its environs, almost every part of the suburbs suffers from aircraft noise at some time or another. The glide-path to Heathrow is sometimes very extensive. Therefore, if we accept that there may be some people—a small percentage: 5 or 10 per cent.—in these localities who are annoyed and irritated because, occasionally, an aircraft goes over, whether by day or by night, and makes a noise which they find to be excessive, we should have to start paying grants to all these localities. That, of course, we cannot do.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that I accepted that one had to draw the line somewhere. I ask that the rigid adherence to the 55 N.N.I. should be varied with reasonable discretion in marginal areas.

Mr. Stonehouse: That is what we are doing. It would have been possible for us to have accepted a higher—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL

Question again proposd, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Stonehouse: I was saying that it would have been possible for the Government to have accepted a much higher N.N.I. figure, bearing in mind that the nuisance suffered by those who live within the N.N.I. area index of 60 to 70 is much worse than those who live within the 55 N.N.I. area. We decided to accept the Wilson Committee's view that about 55 N.N.I. was the point up to which noise was acceptable. This means that people who live just outside this boundary line are suffering a grievance in that their localities do not come within the line that has been drawn. However, I am sure that they would not, because of that, resent the fact that some of the householders who live nearer the airport and who suffer more noise and discomfort than they do will enjoy the advantages of this scheme.
I now take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He said that the Wilson Committee expectation of noise in 1970 is already upon us. I must correct him. It has not yet been reached. We anticipate that it will not be reached until 1969.
It will be seen that we are being generous in two respects. First, we are anticipating the Noise and Number Index in 1970 in 1969 and, secondly, we are departing a little from the Wilson Committee's Report in paying the grant not only to householders who live within the 55 N.N.I. zone but also to those who live within the wards which are cut by that line. So householders some way away from the 55 N.N.I. boundary line will enjoy the grants because their wards are caught by that line. I might add that this decision was made and the localities chosen partly for administrative convenience. Nevertheless, we are being more generous than the Wilson Committee originally proposed.
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond for his tribute to the civil servants and officials who have been concerned in preparing this scheme. They had done a very fine job indeed and I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with that tribute.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick asked what was being done at international airports abroad, the system of grants being paid and whether they were being paid in respect of houses beneath the glide-path. The House will be interested to know that in no other country are sound insulation or sound proofing grants being paid. I hope that the scheme will be approved tonight, for we are breaking completely new ground. We will be the first nation in the world to accept community and social responsibility for paying sound insulation grants to householders near airports. There is no doubt that other countries are following what we are doing and will, perhaps, emulate us.
Despite the persuasive way in which the Amendment was moved, I must ask the House to reject it, both because of its rather faulty wording and because it is superfluous, since the Minister already has power to decide the localities which will enjoy the benefits of the scheme.

Mr. Angus Maude: I doubt whether my hon. Friends who have spoken to the Amendment will regard the Parliamentary Secretary's reply as very satisfactory. It seems that this is one of the difficulties which arise from the method by which the Amendment has been brought before the House. We are not being given a proper opportunity to discuss, on a reasonable basis, what ought to be the boundaries of the area for which grants will be paid. Since the intention is that the Statutory Instrument laid should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, we shall not get a chance to discuss it adequately.
The Parliamentary Secretary said, first, that the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment were imprecise. It does not seem to me that in the new Clause they need be precise. Precision can be given to them in the Order which the Minister subsequently lays. He said, secondly, that in any case my hon. Friend's Amendment was unnecessary because subsection (2) already gave the Minister the necessary power. Here again, owing to the method which has been chosen to bring this legislation before the House, we already know, because the Minister has made his statement in the House, what are the boundaries he proposes to choose. So it is not of very much help


to my hon. Friends to be told that the Minister has power to do this when he has already said that he will not do it. In fact, we should have been given an opportunity, preferably in a separate Bill, or, if necessary, when we come to the Order, to discuss, and to amend if possible, the boundaries within which these grants shall be paid.
I am quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry have done everything in their power to make the best measurements and estimates they can, but there is no certainty that the somewhat arbitrary measurements that the Government have taken will prove to be adequate or satisfactory in the years ahead. If I remember aright, the Wilson Committee did not in any case recommend 55 N.N.I.; it referred to the range 50–60. Therefore, in any case, the Minister is cutting out a certain area.
It seems to me to be both unnecessary and ungracious to refuse at this stage to give at least the hope to my hon. Friends that what is clearly a very serious nuisance to them, and one that may indeed be as great as the nuisance suffered by those in what the Minister in his statement described as the vicinity of Heathrow, will be treated in the same way. If the Parliamentary Secretary believes that the Amendment is unnecessary, I should like to be sure that the position is really covered by the new Clause. The new Clause uses the words "near an aerodrome" and the Minister in his statement spoke of being in the "vicinity" of Heathrow. May we have an assurance that if future noise figures justify it, seven miles, seven and a half miles, even nine miles out will be considered to be near or in the vicinity of the airport? This is a matter of definition about which we should be told.

Mr. Stonehouse: I should like, with permission, to reply to that point. There is no restriction. Subsection (2) of the new Clause states:
A scheme under this section shall specify the area Dr areas in which dwellings must be situated far the grants to be payable …
That wording obviously gives the Minister power to specify any locality that he considers should enjoy the benefits of a scheme of this type.

Mr. Maude: But is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the wording gives full power, considering what is in the first line of subsection (1) of the new Clause? The general power given to the Minister must surely be under subsection (1), which says:
… If it appears to the Minister that dwellings near an aerodrome …
What we want to know is how near is "near". If "near" was not seven miles or seven and a half miles out, the power in subsection (2) would be governed by the power in subsection (1), and the Minister would not be able to give the grant.

Mr. Stonehouse: I think that the hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs. It stands to reason that if houses are under a glide-path they must be near an airport and, therefore, they will fall within the understanding of subsection (1).

Question, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment, put and negatived.

Mr. Braine: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 29, at the end to insert:
and the local authorities concerned".
Had the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) been accepted, it would have followed automatically that the Minister, in exercising his function of requiring the Airports Authority to make grants towards the sound-proofing of dwellings, would have been empowered to do so in respect of airports not owned by the Authority. The House did not accept that Amendment. Nevertheless, our point in putting down both that Amendment and this one was to make it plain that, if their Lordships' Amendment becomes part of the Bill, it constitutes a precedent of very great importance to all who dwell near busy airports where the noise factor may grow, and not just to the four airports named in the Bill.
In my view, it is morally indefensible to say that those who live next door to an airport owned by the Authority shall be eligible, if the Minister so decides, for grant, whilst those suffering from the same nuisance, but living next door to an airport not controlled by the Authority shall not be eligible. Such a situation


could not be tolerated for long if one of the airports not listed in the Bill gave rise to a major noise nuisance, and I do not see how the position can be tolerated now.
The Parliamentary Secretary chided me a little earlier this evening for wanting to give to the new Authority a responsibility that it was not equipped financially to undertake. We are in this difficulty precisely because of the way in which the Bill has been handled. Had the principle enshrined in their Lordships' Amendment first been discussed in this House, we could have got the matter into perspective. We could have discussed the proper division of responsibility. We might have agreed that there was a case for doing something now for Heathrow and for other airports—not only those listed in the Bill but others, later, when the nuisance became sufficiently large.
To take powers to deal at some time in the future with Stansted, where the number of aircraft movements is less than it is at Southend, and where there is nothing like the huge concentration of population we now have in south-east Essex between the Crouch and the Thames, is more than short-sighted. The test should be the extent of the nuisance. However, since my hon. Friend's Amendment was not accepted, I cannot seek to widen the Bill in any way, that is, the Bill as it may be amended by their Lordships.
What I am concerned with here is to see whether there is a precedent which may lead other Governments, of a more enlightened administration in the future, to extend the payment of grants to people towards cost of sound proofing their dwellings. The precedent is one on thoroughly sound lines.
10.15 p.m.
This is a matter affecting local environment, not only dwellings but hospitals and schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) spoke of a maternity home in his constituency which was affected and, earlier, I referred to a school which was affected by excessive aircraft noise. Other hon. Members have also referred to hospitals, apart from the nuisance that is caused to ordinary householders.
I am sure that in a matter affecting local environment it is right that there should be consultations with the appropriate local authority. Certainly, in my constituency it was the local authority which took a lead in making representations on the subject of aircraft noise. This was only right, because the local authority derives a very substantial rate revenue from the airport. I would point out that local authorities already do possess very considerable powers where noise and other nuisances are concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) spoke earlier about the effect of noise, especially aircraft noise in his constituency and its effect on health. Parliament has already recognised the close connection between health and noise and it will not be lost on hon. Members that action taken by a local authority under the Noise Abatement Act of 1960 is not taken by local authorities as a planning authority, but as a health authority.
It seems indefensible, therefore, that before making a scheme under the Bill the Minister should consult not only the airport authority, but also the local health authorities concerned. This is the purpose of my Amendment. It seems to be entirely reasonable and in line with our practice when dealing with environmental matters. I hope, therefore, that the very reasonableness of this suggestion will commend itself to the hon. Gentleman and that he will show his readiness to accept what I propose.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I feel very attracted towards the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Braine) because it brings in an entirely new slant on this Lords Amendment. I have felt that for too long now people living near an airport have been at the mercy either of the Airports Authority or of the Government. Although Members of Parliament may batter away at Governments, not very successfully, I believe that Governments would pay much more attention if local authorities were brought in to support Members of Parliament. I like the idea of bringing in the health authority, which would be able to advise on the making of a scheme. It would give local information to the Authority


and to Ministers in connection with any scheme which is introduced.
This is a sensible proposal and one which the Parliamentary Secretary would probably like to accept. When making up his mind whether to give a grant to a ward, or to an area a little beyond that ward, he would be well advised to take the advice of the local authority.

Mr. George Younger: I support this excellent Amendment. I suggest that there are two reasons why it should he accepted. The first is that which has been touched on. When dealing with nuisances of the type which an airport noise is, one is dealing with local people round about the airport. The natural body to consult about that must always be the local authority. I cannot conceive of the Minister making an Order under the Lords Amendment without consulting the local authority. I cannot see what is to be lost by writing into the Bill the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and, therefore, giving to the local authorities and to those concerned with the Bill the assurance that it will meet the requirements which they think it should meet.
The second reason is one about which I feel even more strongly. The Parliamentary Secretary may agree that I have reason for adducing this reason tonight, because in my constituency is Prestwick Airport, which is a classic case of how a local authority, because of its interest in health and its concern at all times for the well-being and efficiency of the airport, can help in the development of an airport, particularly one which is trying to grow and increase its traffic.
The Minister of Aviation has visited Prestwick. I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman were here, he would tell the House that he met representatives of the local authorities and, in particular, the Prestwick Airport Development Association, which is largely drawn from local interests and local authorities round a bout. The right hon. Gentleman must have been impressed by the quality of the advice they gave and by the interest they showed in the development of the airport.
If the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend were written into the Bill, it would give these local people, not only in Prestwick but at other airports, the feeling that they were being considered and that they had a right to be considered when a matter such as noise in the vicinity of the airport was being considered. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary would wish for a moment to under-value the help which the Minister and the Authority will get from active and interested help from local authorities in the area. He would have nothing to lose but a great deal to gain by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) rather damned the Amendment in his first few words, because he made it clear that he wanted it to apply to Southend and to any other authority having an airport in its locality. That is the primary reason why the Amendment is unacceptable. We are concerned in the Bill with schemes which may be laid before the House in connection with the Airports Authority, and at this time we expect that there will be only four airports connected with the Authority.
It is our intention to consult and keep in contact with the authorities around any one of these airports which may be affected by one of these schemes. Certainly, it is the intention in connection with the scheme at Heathrow that the authorities immediately around, in the areas where these grants will be paid, will play an important part, acting as a go-between between the householders and the Authority. We hope that there will be close co-operation.
The hon. Member suggested that before such a scheme could be introduced every corporation in the country which had an airport and had a noise problem would have to be consulted. He referred to the importance of the position at Southend, but we do not wish that to be confused with the responsibilities of the Airports Authority in connection with the sound insulation scheme around Heathrow.

Mr. Braine: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to be under a misapprehension. Although the term "local authority" is used in my Amendment, I was careful to explain that I was referring to local health authorities. In the case of


county councils, the local health authorities and the local planning authorities are one and the same, and although there may be a big problem around Heathrow the Minister would probably have to consult with only one or at the most two authorities elsewhere in the country. I do not see that the reason which the hon. Gentleman has given is convincing.

Mr. Stonehouse: I should like to explain that without the help of the proposed Amendment we are already in close touch with the authorities concerned. I have met representatives of the authorities around Heathrow who participate in a consultative committee. We discuss these problems with them. Therefore, the suggestion that we need the Amendment to carry on these discussions is incorrect. We shall bear in mind the point about working out schemes with the various health authorities in the localities concerned.
In planning for the particular sound insulation scheme, which the Bill will give the Minister authority to put forward for the Airports Authority to administer, we are obtaining the best possible scientific, technical and health authority advice that we can obtain.
Sound insulation schemes at hospitals and schools are quite outside the schemes which we are discussing. We are concerned with sound insulation grants for householders. The sound insulation of schools and hospitals, which we hope will go ahead around Heathrow, in particular, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Airports Authority is not being asked within this scheme to accept responsibility for the insulation of those institutions.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out the great importance of keeping in close touch with the authorities around Prestwick. We appreciate the value of these contacts but this is hardly relevant to our discussion of a possible scheme at Heathrow towards the end of the year. It may be many years before a similar scheme would be introduced for Prestwick. I confirm that it is our intention to have the closest possible contacts with the authority in any locality that may be affected by an increase in noise at any airport for which the Airports Authority is responsible.
Therefore, we believe that this Amendment is superfluous and I ask the House to reject it.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I cannot understand the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude. He has been saying, "We are already consulting the local authorities concerned, and, therefore, we do not see why this should be written into the Bill." This is fantastic. He is not legislating only for the present. The Bill will be law for a long time, and, therefore, there should be a duty on the Minister of Aviation to consult the local authorities concerned. The art of getting Parliamentary business through the House is not in delaying matters about which we are agreed. Why cannot this Amendment be accepted?
The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is intended to consult the local authorities concerned now and in the future. Why, therefore, is there any objection to accepting the Amendment? Can the hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which it would not be right to consult the authorities concerned?

Mr. Stonehouse: There is still some indecision about which authorities would be concerned, and we want to avoid that.

Mr. Channon: As the Bill is drafted—I argued earlier that it should be widened, but I was unsuccessful—it applies to four airports. This Amendment applies to the local authorities concerned with those four airports. I cannot see what the fuss is about. The Minister says that he is consulting at the moment and has every intention of consulting in the future, and yet he wastes Parliamentary time by refusing to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Braine: In the case of Stansted Airport in Essex there is only one health authority that the Minister would have to consult, namely, Essex County Council. Where is the difficulty?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary makes such heavy weather of this Amendment. Why cannot he just accept it? He refuses to accept this Amendment which would compel his successors to do the job. He is doing the job anyway. The Minister of Aviation and the Parliamentary Secre-

tary, admirable men as I am sure they are, will carry out this duty in a reasonable way and, no doubt, their successors will do so, but why should we not bind their successors to do so?
This is a perfectly easy and simple Amendment which we could have discussed in three minutes if the Parliamentary Secretary had only understood the point. It states that whenever the Minister is considering laying an Order under the Bill and intends to produce a Statutory Instrument he shall consult the Authority and the local authorities concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), with his great experience at the Ministry of Health, knows, the most important person to be consulted is probably the local medical officer of health, because he will know whether considerable damage and inconvenience is caused to the residents in the neighbourhood as a result of noise at the airport. The medical officer of health is responsible for environmental health in his area.
The Parliamentary Secretary will lose nothing by accepting the Amendment. He is being stubborn for no purpose whatsoever. He says the Amendment is superfluous. I do not agree. We are not legislating merely for 1965. This Bill is unlikely to come before the House again for many years. All we are seeking to do is to provide that when the Minister prepares a scheme he shall have a duty to consult not only the Airports Authority but the local authorities concerned.
I am not asking that the Minister shall consult Southend local authority, because Southend will not be covered by the Bill as the Amendment relating to Southend has been rejected. The Bill merely enables the Minister to deal with these four airports. Why make such heavy weather of the Amendment? Why not accept it quickly and then get on to the main Amendment? This waste of time is absolutely ridiculous. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member is."] I am not wasting time. Hon. Members who interrupt have only just come into the Chamber and by their interruptions are prolonging rather than shortening this debate.
I propose to sit down in precisely a minute's time, but I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to consider: what is wrong


with the Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment? He says it is superfluous. All I can say is that it may be to the hon. Gentleman, but surely it should be the duty of the Minister to consult the local authorities concerned. The Minister has a duty in this matter to bind his successors in this way. It would be totally unreasonable to produce schemes without consulting the local authorities, and I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. Royle: I should like to support my hon. Friends and to try to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter. There are a lot of local authorities in a wide area round London concerned in this matter. I do not see that there would be any disadvantage in accepting as it stands the Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment. If it is superfluous it will not do any harm to the Bill. I again plead with the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude, and see whether he can accept the Amendment.

Mr. Younger: I am really most disturbed at a remark the Parliamentary Secretary made a few moments ago—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Member has already exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Royle: The Parliamentary Secretary is underestimating the interest which local authorities throughout the whole of the area, certainly round Heath Row itself, are taking in this. The new London Borough of Richmond, the Borough of Brentford and Chiswick and many others would very much value the consultation of which we ask. I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider his attitude, and accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stonehouse: I should just like to say that any authority wishing to make representations to the Minister or to me is perfectly welcome to do so. We are only too delighted to meet any councillors or representatives of authorities to discuss with them any proposals which they may have. I simply repeat that it is not necessary for the House to write

in a statutory obligation on the Minister to consult in the way which has been suggested.

Question, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment, put and negatived.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause from another place details the way in which the Statutory Instrument the Minister proposes to lay before the House will be dealt with. It is proposed that the Minister should have power to make a scheme for grants to be paid for dwellings around an airport which is the responsibility of the Airports Authority.
As the House is aware from the statement which the Minister made on 10th March, the Minister has in mind the particular problem of noise at Heathrow. We have accepted the Wilson Committee's Report that the noise problem at Heathrow is unprecedented, is unique, and, therefore, demands special attention.
Hon. Members who have criticised us for any delay in bringing a scheme forward must surely direct their scorn and complaints against the previous Minister who failed to do anything to deal with this problem—

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman is putting up an Aunt Sally.

Mr. Stonehouse: —despite the case brought forward in the Report of the Wilson Committee. The last Administration failed to do anything about the problems which hon. Members opposite have spent hours today describing to us in such heartrending terms. It has been left to this Administration to do something about a social problem that is of undoubted concern to many people who live around Heathrow.
Judging from the contributions made so far in our discussions this evening, and from the representations and correspondence that the Ministry has had, both directly and through various hon. Members, the scheme is very welcome to many thousands of householders around Heathrow. I am glad that there is still further confirmation that the scheme which we are bringing forward in the


proposed Amendment from another place is so welcome.
It is a great pity that hon. Members opposite, who have tonight made so many useful and valuable points in the debates on the Amendments, failed to make those points adequately and strongly enough to convince their right hon. and hon. Friends who had responsibilities in the Ministries concerned before the election.

Mr. A. Royle: I regret that the hon. Gentleman is making this issue into a party political point. One of the things that we have always had in this House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not making an intervention. He is making a speech. There is no Question yet before the House.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am simply trying to put the whole matter into perspective, because we have been criticised for the delay—

Mr. Braine: No.

Mr. Stonehouse: —in the scheme.
To those hon. Members who are concerned about the way in which this was introduced in another place and has been brought to the House of Commons in the form of Lords Amendments I can only say that it would have been much easier for us had the previous Administration accepted the principle and done preparatory work before the election. I well recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) and I recognise the work that my predecessor, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has done in this matter. Notwithstanding that, the last Administration failed to accept the Wilson Committee recommendations and, therefore, it was left to this new Administration to start work almost from scratch to work out an acceptable scheme. That is what we are discussing on the Lords Amendment.
Towards the end of the year, my right hon. Friend the Minister will lay a Statutory Instrument which will give full details of the scheme which he has in mind. In his statement of 10th March, he announced the wards around Heathrow to which the scheme will apply. It is his

intention to bring the scheme into effect so that houses which have been completed by 1st January, 1966, can take advantage of the scheme. Grants of up to 50 per cent. of schemes up to a total cost of £200 for each house will be made so that householders can be protected by insulating their homes against the noise from Heathrow. It is proposed that the scheme should end on 31st December, 1970, so that there will be a full five years for householders in the localities concerned to take advantage of the scheme. This will help to meet the many complaints that have been made about noise around Heathrow.
Although I fully accept that there are other householders who suffer from noise nuisance outside the localities which have been detailed, it would have been impossible to have widened the area which will enjoy grants without, perhaps, placing too great a burden upon the Airports Authority. We have accepted the line of demarcation which the Wilson Committee laid down in its report and in its anticipation of what the position would be in and around 1970. The Wilson Committee said that the Noise Number Index, the noise acceptable, would be between 50 and 60 N.N.I. and we have taken the mean of that, 55 N.N.I., as being the line for which grants would be paid. As I said when we were discussing an earlier Amendment, we have gone further than the Wilson Committee in that it is proposed that the grant should be paid to any ward crossed by the 55 N.N.I. line. This will be the intention when the scheme is laid before the House at the end of the year, but the House will have an opportunity to pray against the scheme if it so wishes and to have a debate on that occasion.
10.45 p.m.
Under subsection (4), it is the Minister's intention to authorise or require local authorities to act as agents of the Authority in dealing with applications for payment of grants. We hope to have the fullest co-operation of the municipal authorities concerned and I am sure that it will be obtained. They have shown very great interest in the problems of noise abatement around Heathrow and I am sure that most if not all of them will welcome the fact that this scheme is to be brought into effect in the very near future.
We trust that the House will recognise that in approving the Amendment we are creating something of a precedent. For the first time the community is accepting responsibility for noise created around an airport. We are the first country to do this and we are breaking completely new ground and I believe that the House and the public will be grateful to us for doing that.

Mr. Maude: In trying to score a political point, the Parliamentary Secretary has been guilty of a certain amount of what I can only describe as misrepresentation. He said that the Lords Amendment had been universally welcomed from this side of the House and that the Government had come forward with what he described as an acceptable scheme, for which he took some credit. But, unless he was asleep, he cannot have realised that the overwhelming majority of speeches from this side of the House were made precisely because my hon. Friends do not regard this as an acceptable scheme. This is the whole difficulty which is inherent in the Amendment and in the method by which it has been put forward.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made great play with the fact that the community, as he described it, has accepted a social responsibility for this problem and that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Wilson Committee. Neither of those is true. The Wilson Report recommended that the community should accept responsibility and should pay for it. The recommendation was that the money for grants for soundproofing should be found by the Government. In fact, so far from the Government on behalf of the community accepting this recommendation, they have rejected it. They have passed the cost to the Airports Authority which is given power to recoup, presumably from the operators or other users of airfields.

Mr. Stonehouse: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Airports Authority, when it is set up, will be part of the community, and, therefore, will accept a social responsibility on behalf of the community. What we have done is to accept that the body which creates the nuisance must accept the financial responsibility for dealing with it, and I would not say that that in any way conflicts with

my submission that this is accepting a social responsibility.

Mr. Maude: It means that the Government are trying to get the kudos for this on the cheap. They are placing this burden, which the Minister estimated at £2¼ million, or £220,000 annually, on the Airports Authority, with a virtual injunction that it is to recoup it, presumably largely from the operators who are the people described as creating the nuisance.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he would put the burden directly on the taxpayer?

Mr. Maude: I am saying that the Government are claiming to have followed the recommendations of the Wilson Committee. That Committee recommended that the Government should pay, and the Government have not accepted its recommendations.

Mr. Stonehouse: Did the hon. Gentleman accept them?

Mr. Maude: We did not accept the Committee's recommendations. The Government are saying one thing, and doing another, as they so often do. If the Parliamentary Secretary intends to try to argue about the community accepting the social responsibility, he must not try this sort of bluff, because that is all that it is.
The effect will be to increase airport charges to operators and users by the amount of the annual charge to the Authority. Charges at London Airport are already about the highest in the world, and this will increase them still further. Why do not the Government have the courage to say this, instead of all this high-flying talk about the community accepting responsibility, as if this were money falling from heaven by some divine dispensation? In the last resort this money will come out of the profits of the airlines, if any, or it will go on to the tickets paid for by airline users. That is what the Government's generosity amounts to. We all know why this Measure has been introduced. It has been brought in to get the Prime Minister off the hook. From the Government's point of view it is being done in the cheapest way, and it is a token sort of concession to an election pledge at that.
It is not easy now to say how adequate the form of grant will be. Owing to the thoroughly unsatisfactory method which the Government have chosen to introduce this new Clause, we are in the difficult position that, while we know—because the Minister has made a statement in the House—what he proposes to put into the Statutory Instrument when it appears, it is not specified in the new Clause.
The Minister has said what the boundaries of the area are to be. He has said at the maximum grant is to be. It is to be a 50 per cent. grant, with a maximum of £100. That means that for something which the Wilson Committee suggested would cost at least £300—that was for a three-bedroom house, and we can bet that that cost has now risen—the Authority will pay one-third.
The most important criticism which must be made about this rather unsavoury political manoeuvre is that a specific area is to be laid down, which as far as I can gather, will not even follow parish boundaries, because at one point we had part of a parish referred to. It will follow the arbitrary noise contour line on the Wilson Committee's map, and the Statutory Instrument, when it is introduced—and this is one of my main objections to the method used—will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure only, which means that the House will have to reject it in total, or pass it in total, and will have no means whatever of amending it, or of altering the boundaries, or even of hearing arguments as to whether the boundaries are the right ones or not.
This, of course, has been the burden of so many of the speeches which have been made by my hon. Friends this evening. The plain fact, and the Government must know it, is that they have chosen a method of introducing this redemption of the Prime Minister's election pledge which is constitutionally quite wrong and most unsatisfactory. This should never have been done in this way at all.
It is a long-standing principle of Parliament that where a Government measure confers benefits on a particular, specified area of the population, and denies them to another, then those who think they are aggrieved should have the opportunity to go before a Committee of this House and argue their case. In fact, if this had been

done in the proper way, which is by a special Bill, it would have been a hybrid Bill subject to that special Committee procedure, and the Government know this very well.
Because they were not prepared to subject themselves to the proper hybrid Bill procedure, they resorted to this shabby subterfuge of catching a quite different Bill, a train which had gone practically the whole way through the tunnel and was practically at the other end, the Airports Authority Bill, and at the very last moment tacking on to it a general power for the Minister to introduce a Statutory Instrument at a later stage which the House will have no opportunity but to pass in toto or to reject in toto.
I say very strongly that this was a monstrous procedure to adopt. It is really an abuse of the procedures of this House. The Minister should never have lent himself to this at all. There should have been ample opportunity for the people on the boundaries of these quite arbitrary and, for all we know, scientifically not very accurate areas to be laid down, and for people outside them in the constituency, for example, of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) and others, to argue their case for inclusion.
Whatever one may think about whether or not the scheme is satisfactory, and whether or not the grants are to be satisfactory, the method chosen and the whole procedure is terribly unsatisfactory, and the Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I have been in the House since just after 7.30 p.m., listening to this debate. I have taken part in many aircraft noise debates, over nearly 10 years. We have always endeavoured to join forces on non-party lines in pressing previous Governments to do something to abate this great nuisance to the people, but after listening to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), and his party line tonight, I think that he has destroyed what has been done in the House before.
The hon. Member has never taken any interest in this aircraft noise question. I know that his constituency is far away from the battlefield of noise in Stratford-on-Avon, but I can remember when the


hon. Member represented Ealing, South, much nearer London Airport and he then took no interest in aircraft noise and never attended any of these debates. To-day, he is taking a different attitude entirely on a party line.

Mr. Maude: Since the hon. Member is attacking me, he may recall that the time when I represented Ealing, South, was a long time ago, before the jet aircraft noise problem arose there, and I never had any letters from my constituents at all.

Mr. Hunter: There were Adjournment debates in the House between 1955 and 1957 when the hon. Gentleman was here representing that constituency, and never once did I see him present. The aircraft noise around London Airport was a problem then.
I am pleased that some hon. Members are converted to the idea of soundproofing. This matter did not start last October. The Wilson Committee recommended that certain areas shown on maps in the Report should be given financial aid towards the cost of soundproofing people's homes. After consultations and meetings, the local authorities sent me a soundproofing scheme, which I sent to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation. He showed me every courtesy and every attention, and I placed before him the local authorities' scheme for sound proofing certain private dwellings of people affected by aircraft noise.
11.0 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman was sympathetic. I am sure that if he had had the powers, he would have done something along the lines of soundproofing, but the Lord President of the Council of the day made a statement in the House of Lords to the effect that the Government would give no soundproofing grants. We never even got a debate on the matter. I pressed for a debate on the Wilson Report, but the then Government never allowed time for soundproofing to be discussed. Yet hon. Members opposite say tonight that they want to extend the scheme. I do not object to the scheme being extended, but the previous Government said that they were dead set against soundproofing. There is no denying that, so it is rather

hypocritical of them to come here tonight and make out that they are so keen about extending soundproofing to other areas when the previous Government refused to do soundproofing anywhere.
I congratulate the Minister. In my constituency, this step by the Government is welcomed. He stands in very high regard in my constituency, not only because of the soundproofing scheme, but also for his excellent work for the airlines and for civil air transport. The scheme with which he has come forward has been amended in the Lords, but the Airports Authority Bill, which, I believe, was drawn up by the last Government and was pigeon-holed, waiting for this Government, had already gone through this House. To avoid the delay of producing another Bill, the Government took the course of amending the Bill so that the scheme could go through more quickly.
I am very pleased that this has been done—

Dr. David Kerr: Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central) rose—

Mr. Hunter: Just a second.
There is one point about which people are especially concerned, and that is the question of night noise. A number of people have said to me, "We can put up with it in the day, but we want to sleep at night." The double glazing giving the protection from noise will be a great help to people living near London Airport where grants are given. I do not say that previous Ministers did not try to abate this nuisance. I remember the efforts of about five Ministers. We were given earth banks and also mufflers to keep out the ground noise, but there were no soundproofing grants or schemes. I know that the hon. Member for Banbury did all that he could in meeting local authorities and residents and in trying to get some solution to the problem.
It is a big problem and the problem will grow, but I think that soundproofing and double-glazing is a step in the right direction. It has been welcomed in my constituency. All my constituency does not come under the scheme, but it does apply to the worst-affected parts—Cranford, Bedfont and North Feltham. I am sure that this is not final, and, I hope on a future date, the Minister will again consider the matter.
I trust that my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic attention to cases of old and sick people who are unable to find their 50 per cent. towards the cost of soundproofing their homes. Such cases are bound to arise.
I welcome the Bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction. For the first time soundproofing grants are to be given—that is, for the first time in this or any other country. Some people will derive other benefits from the scheme, since double glazing will result in lower fuel bills and a reduction of noise from cars and lorries on main roads as well as aircraft.
Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of a number of my constituents, and I know that research will be continued by his Ministry to endeavour to solve the aircraft noise problem at its source.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. A. E. Hunter) was less than fair when he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) of bringing party politics into this matter. If anyone is to be accused of taking a party line, it should be remembered that the Parliamentary Secretary started it.
On a completely non-party point, I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would clear up a matter which has been worrying me more and more as the debate has progressed. The original statement made by the Minister of Aviation on 10th March referred solely to Heathrow. To my great relief, however, the new Clause includes the four airports covered by the Airports Authority. Despite this, the Parliamentary Secretary adduced as one reason for not accepting an earlier Amendment—in the discussion of which I referred particularly to Prestwick—the fact that it would be many years before Prestwick would be affected. If the Measure is designed to cover the four airports mentioned, surely it should cover them at any time, whether tomorrow, next week, or in 10 years' time.
I have been even more mystified by the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks because he has consistently begun his comments by referring to Heathrow. This is a matter of great concern and if the Bill will cover the four airports men-

tioned, it should be definitely seen to cover all four. I would be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would confirm, in absolutely unequivocal terms, that what is written in the Bill applies equally to all the four airports and that there is no Question whatever that if any of the other three airports, other than Heathrow, comes into the category as mentioned in the new Clause at any time in the future, it will automatically be included within the orbit of the Measure.

Mr. Channon: I, too, was, astonished to hear the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. A. E. Hunter) accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) of introducing party politics into this issue. Throughout the debate the Parliamentary Secretary has done nothing else, from beginning to end, but try to make party points. I do not blame him for that. If he wants to make party points, that is his business. But for the hon. Member for Feltham to speak as if with a halo around his head and accuse my hon. Friend of making party points is almost beyond belief.
Naturally, the hon. Member for Feltham welcomes the new Clause. Naturally, many of his constituents welcome it. But I wonder whether they will welcome it so warmly when they have examined its provisions. Since many of his constituents will be covered by the Bill, it is understandable that he should welcome the Measure. The hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate, however, that a great many people consider it unjust that the Government should take these powers yet, at the same time, fail to provide for the taking of additional powers in future.
As always with this Government, we have Government by statement rather than by action. People gathered from the original statement made by the Minister that this munificent Government had produced from out of the sky, so to speak, a scheme which would benefit everyone. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has pointed out, what has happened is that the airline operators and other people concerned will have to take these costs and the people using the airlines will have to pay for the services.
This may be the right thing to do, but the hon. Member for Feltham should


bear the fact in mind. I am sorry that I was provoked into attacking him, but it was a disgrace to the House that the hon. Member should have spoken as he did about my hon. Friend.
I should like to put one or two points to the Minister. From my own reading of the Wilson Report, I find, in paragraph 323, that if this work was to be done effectively
… the cost per house would average £300.
I appreciate that the terms of the Statutory Instrument might be changed, but, at the moment, I believe that the maximum grant to each householder is £100; so, if the Wilson Report recommendation is correct, is it not the case that the householder himself would have to find £200? When this matter was before another place the total figure was somehow reduced to £200—I emphasise, the total cost. Could the Minister tell us now what really is the estimate? What will it cost effectively to soundproof and air condition one of these houses? One of my hon. Friends has spoken about air conditioning, and it is something we should not forget.
I wonder how much we shall be able to achieve with the grant of £100, how effective it will be in dealing with a problem which the Government have set out to tackle. It is to the Government's credit that they are breaking new ground and, so far as it goes, I accept the manner in which it is proposed it should be done, but we should have liked to have discussed the matter before the Bill went to another place. Regrettable though it is that we did not, we all accept, however, that if the Government are going to carry on in this way what we have tried to achieve is the establishment of the fact that any schemes introduced under this legislation shall be fair to all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has pointed out that the Government are not exercising the full powers and I am also very concerned that the Government are not willing to extend the powers they could have in order to take in other matters; but I will not discuss that further at this hour. At the same time, I must point out that we have had no real assurance about the four airports. There are apparently no plans

to deal with Prestwick, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) pointed out that there had been inadequate plans for the people around London Airport. So, few people will really benefit.
I agree that the Government have taken some powers to deal with the London Airport problem, but if we had had the opportunity to discuss the Bill more adequately, and if the Government had not carried the Bill through Second Reading, and Committee and Report stages and passed it on to another place before this scheme ever came forward, we should have been better able to deal with this particular matter.
11.15 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman says that it was our fault that the Government did not come forward with this Bill earlier, but that is absolute rubbish. The Government should not have come forward until they were ready, and should not have dealt with the matter in this way. The hon. Gentleman's argument has no weight whatsoever. The Government should have included this Clause in the Bill at the time, when it could have been dealt with in the normal way.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly how much he thinks this scheme will cost the residents in the area concerned. How much does he estimate it will cost to soundproof and air condition these houses? We know that only a maximum of £100 will be made available by the Authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that if any airports other than those listed in this Measure come up to the noise level of Heathrow he will go some way to meeting our legitimate request that similar arrangements will be available in those cases? I hope that he will be prepared to give us such an assurance.

Mr. A. Royle: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that this scheme has been overwhelmingly welcomed by this side of the House. Whilst we welcome any Measure that will in any way relieve the distress caused all round this area by noise—and we certainly welcome the fact that the position of some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. A. E. Hunter) will be eased by this scheme for soundproofing—we do not


welcome the scheme as a whole, because it does not the job properly. The area benefiting by it has been narrowed down too much.
In his statement on 10th March, the Minister said:
The area will comprise the Staines and Stanwell wards in Staines Urban District; Langley ward in the Borough of Slough; the parishes of Horton, Datchet and Wraysbury and part of the parish of Iver in Eton rural district; East Bedfont, Feltham North, Hounslow West, Hounslow Central, Hounslow South, Hounslow Heath, Cranford, Heston West, Heston East, Spring Grove and Isleworth South wards in the London Borough of Hounslow; and south ward and part of Hayes ward in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The area will be subject to review in the light of any changes in ward or parish boundaries before 1st January 1966."—[OFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 413.]
That sounds a very impressive list, but it does not do the job properly, because it does not cover the areas really affected. I was very sad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he could not agree to extend the scheme under the first Order to be made to include areas under the glide-path at a distance of 9 miles from the threshold, and 2 miles wide. That refusal will cause even greater distress and depression to hundreds of thousands of people.
If the Parliamentary Secretary feels that he cannot make any gesture now, perhaps he will give an assurance that he will institute an annual check on noise levels in other areas. Perhaps he will undertake that if at any time that check were to show that noise levels were up to the N.N.I. he has been using as a guide, he would immediately bring in an Order to include that area within the scheme. I think that that will give a great deal of pleasure and bring hope to the hundreds of thousands who have been excluded from this scheme.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Roy Jenkins): We have had three hours and forty minutes of fairly wide-ranging, and, on the whole, extremely constructive debate on this subject. I doubt very much whether we would have got further. I have taken note of the points, mainly constituency points, but none the less important, which a number of hon. Members' have made.
From some Members we have had two speeches and in nearly all cases the first

was better than the second. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), was perhaps the least courteous of those who spoke during the debate, though I noticed that after he had spoken a more querulous note entered the voices of those who followed him, which says much for the power of the leadership on the benches opposite.
The hon. Member made it clear that not only did the last Government not do anything about this, but that if he had any power he would do nothing about it at present. I wish to make no party points beyond that.
What greatly surprises me is that it was thought to be very wrong that this scheme was not manna from Heaven, but that it had to be paid for by somebody. I thought it was the Conservative philosophy on these matters that money raised by taxation had to be paid for by somebody. It is certainly our view that it is well within the resources of the Airports Authority to provide this money. The surplus at Heathrow was £2 million last year.

Mr. Maude: The Minister must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that I disapproved of the method, though I think that it has to be watched to see that it does not impose too high a charge on the users of London Airport. My point was that the Parliamentary Secretary kept saying that the Government had adopted the recommendations of the Wilson Report and that the community had accepted responsibility for it. I just said this is not true.

Mr. Jenkins: The Government have accepted responsibility for seeing that something is done about the problem and that the funds are provided to meet it. I do not think that it will constitute too heavy a burden.
There are two points, in particular, I wish to deal with. One is the slightly mystifying question of the cost of this scheme. It is perfectly true that the Wilson Committee did talk about a figure of £300 for sound-proofing up to three rooms. That was in a report made about two years ago. The natural assumption would be that the cost might have risen since then, but in fact, that is not so. All our estimates, fortified by the views of the Building Research Station,


are that the costs of effective soundproofing schemes have fallen substantially since then.
It is possible to use a much smaller and much cheaper ventilator. There have been important developments in this field, so that it is now a firm estimate that sound-proofing up to three rooms of the average house can be done for just about £200, of which the Authority will pay up to a half.
The second point raised was the question of what happens when another airport reaches the same level of noise as that which persists at present around London Airport. The position clearly is, and it is indicated by the form in which we tabled this Amendment, that should other airports within the control of the Airports Authority reach a figure such as we are proposing to deal with here, that is, the 55 N.N.I. contour, we would certainly consider it necessary to act. If other airports not within the control of the Authority were to come within this figure there would be a case for doing something as far as they were concerned.
It would have been totally inappropriate to deal with airports which are not and never will be within the control of the Airports Authority in a Bill dealing with that Authority. The only practical problem with which we have to deal at the moment is that surrounding London Airport and by far the quickest way of dealing with it was to put in an Amendment, admittedly at a late stage, into the Airports Authority Bill which was currently going through the legislative process. If we had not done that—and I apologise for any inconvenience caused—while it might have been slightly more convenient for the House it would have been a great deal less convenient for the residents in the area affected. This has enabled us to deal with the practical immediate problem with which we were faced.
It also seemed reasonable to us—because although the problem is a London Airport problem at the moment it may not remain so indefinitely—that we should put in the other three areas. I am perfectly sure that, had we done otherwise, we would have had a great and fairly justified outcry from the other airports that this proved that we were

putting up the Authority to take over the municipal airports at some time in the future. It would have been quite inappropriate, in a Measure dealing with the Authority's airports, to have in it other airports municipally and privately owned throughout the country. If the noise around other airports approaches the level at which the nuisance to residents in those areas is comparable with that at London Airport it follows that we would need to look at that problem and deal with it at the appropriate time.
In view of what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, the hope for those who live around them is that the present Government will be still in power when the nuisance arises.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20.—(REPORTS AND INFORMATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The object of the Amendment is to remove a power given to the Minister to obtain from the Authority information which the Authority may not wish to supply to him. Their Lordships felt that this was a slur on the independence of the Authority and an indication of a lack of confidence on the part of the Minister. The original form of words has been included in many statutes in the past, but as it has not been used we felt that we could well agree with the Lords that these words should be deleted.

Question put and agreed to.

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Willis.]

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Willis.]

GENERAL HOSPITAL BURTON-ON-TRENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: After the noise of jets, the quietness of a hospital After the battling of the Minister of Aviation, and the Parliamentary Secretary, the soothing voice and opinions of the Ministry of Health—at least I hope so.
I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House, and particularly of the Ministry of Health, the position of the General Hospital at Burton-on-Trent. I tell a story of acute disappointment, of baffled frustration and of promise unfulfilled. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to notice that I did not use the word "promises"; I referred to a "promise unfulfilled". We in Burton, for almost two years, have been living in a fairyland of anticipation of a new general hospital, and at one fell swoop our fairyland of promise was completely dissipated.
I shall be as brief as possible and cut out many of the details in the story, for the Parliamentary Secretary is very familiar with the general layout of the story. Suffice it to say that after long discussions and negotiations over the years there resulted agreement all round between the Ministry, the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board and the Burton-on-Trent General Hospital Management Committee for the building of a new general hospital on the Andressey site—not on the site of the present general hospital in the middle of the town.
This was destined to be in three phases, and we are discussing tonight phase 1 of this general scheme which was generally agreed. Phase 1 took in the out-patients' department, the casualty department and supporting services. The final cost of this phase was in the region of £1½ to £1¾ million. The story is that this was placed in the 10-year hospital programme and was one of the priorities. As early—or should I say "as late"—as June, 1963, the regional hospital board approved the scheme with its capital

programme, and confirmed it. As far as Burton-on-Trent was concerned, everything looked promising. Two years ahead lay phase 1 of the new general hospital. Gone would be many of the frustrations from which we and many other general hospitals had suffered.
Over these two years from 1963 to the present time everybody in the general hospital—the management committee, the surgeons, the staff, the administrators—geared everything to the thought that in 1965 would be started the new general hospital. What did this mean in their thinking and planning? It meant that in our unselfish way—for we in Burton-on-Trent are very unselfish and public spirited—we said, "We shall not involve the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board in more capital expenditure on buildings which are to be replaced by a new general hospital." So we clamped down on the development schemes in view of the land of promise which was awaiting us in two years' time.
It has been denied in various quarters that a starting date was mentioned. I have never said at any time publicly or privately that the Minister gave a starting date. He is not even in a position to give a starting date now. But a starting date was given—that of 15th June this year. It was actually minuted in the records of the Burton-on-Trent General Hospital Management Committee. So everybody was happy. I am not trying to score a party point here. The Parliamentary Secretary and I know each other too well to use a hospital for the purpose of scoring party political points.
The fact that this is in November, immediately after the General Election, literally has no political connotation, because we know the whole thing is in a pipeline, but in November the bombshell fell, and the management committee was informed that the new building of phase I was to be taken out of the 1965 programme.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to come to Burton some time and have a look at our casualty department. I put Questions some time ago asking for statistics, to the nearest convenient date, of how many accidents and admissions had been dealt with in the casualty department. The staggering figure was 17,000. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we serve not only


Burton-on-Trent, but a very large industrial area in South Derbyshire, and also in Staffordshire, in the Tamworth and Lichfield area—and an area in South Derbyshire including a large portion of the constituency of his right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State? I should like to do the Parliamentary Secretary a good turn as well as myself!
What I am asking now is that the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why this has happened. Here was money earmarked for Burton-on-Trent, £1¾ million or thereabouts. We were in a priority list. What has happened to the money? Who has got it? Whose priority is greater than ours? These are the simple questions I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer. If only we knew whose need is greater than ours, we might be a bit happier, and in our unselfish and public-spiritedness say, "Good luck, chums. We give way to you because your need is greater". I am expecting the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me that.
I conclude by saying I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for letting me have a letter yesterday in which he gives me certain information. There are three points I would like to take from that letter. First, he tells me that the Ministry has been able to give Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
formal approval for its sketch plans and final cost limit for stage one of the district general hospital scheme for Andressey, Burton-on-Trent.
Secondly, he goes on to say that this means that
An important planning hurdle is now cleared".
In other words, he is telling us that he will give us permission, that the cost has been approved, that we can now go ahead planning and costing and putting out tenders when the appropriate time comes. That is all very nice, but, to use a colloquialism, "there ain't any money." So the crucial question is: when do we start? When do we get the money?
The sting is in the last sentence of the letter. The letter is nice and sugary to start with, and I appreciate that, for I like sugary things, but it then goes on to say that
it does not affect the Answer you were given in the House, that the start of the scheme is at present forecast for 1967–68.

In other words, a forecast—not an assurance—a forecast of two years' hence.
So, in Burton, we are in the unfortunate—indeed, the tragic—position of having first of all been in a priority list in the 10-year programme, of having had well over £1million allocated to us, of having been living in the dreamland of anticipation for two years of having a new general hospital to be started in June this year, and then, by a bombshell, seeing this position of certainty blasted into the realms of uncertainty. Now we are told that there is no guarantee that even in two years' time we will start our new general hospital.
The Parliamentary Secretary and I know each other well. As I have sat here waiting through the long debate on airports—and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for waiting so patiently, too—I asked myself this question. Having watched the hon. Gentleman over the years when he sat on the Opposition benches, what attitude would he have taken had he been in my place? In that spirit, I should like him to answer.

11.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I want to try to meet the case which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who has presented it in his characteristic courteous and, in parts, slightly humorous manner, even though he feels, rightly, that he is smarting under an injustice by my Department. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to explain fully where the important development scheme to which he has referred stands.
As the hon. Member has said, there are two main hospitals at Burton-on-Trent, the existing General Infirmary and Andressey Hospital. We are grateful to the hon. Member for making clear that we are talking tonight about the scheme for the new general hospital to go on the Andressey site, because the decision to choose this site was reached only after very careful consideration and thought.
The General Infirmary, which is in the centre of Burton and has 255 acute beds, was at one time considered to be suitable for further development, and the provision of a new casualty and outpatient department there was in mind. As the hon. Member knows, however, the


site is bounded on three sides by roads and on the fourth by a railway, and it covers only 1·8 acres and is already extremely congested. From the time that the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board had comprehensively assessed the hospital needs of Burton and the area surrounding it by modern standards, it was clear that a much larger site would be required.
Again as the hon. Member has said—and he has made my task easier because he has outlined some of the things to which I want to refer—the population to be served by the Burton hospitals is estimated at about 130,000, which includes about 40,000 from the neighbouring areas, including some of the area of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary—

Mr. Jennings: A mining area.

Mr. Loughlin: —so that a population of this size justifies a district general hospital.
Once the decision to seek a larger site had been taken, it became clear that the site at Andressey was the right one, for although at present this is largely a long-stay hospital of 319 beds, it has extensive grounds amounting in all to about 37½ acres, about half of which contains no buildings. After detailed discussions with the Burton-on-Trent Hospital Management Committee, it was finally determined that the new district general hospital should, therefore, be developed at Andressey.
It followed that the new out-patient and accident departments would be the first stage of this new hospital. This necessarily involved a larger and more expensive scheme than had earlier been thought of, for a modern accident and emergency department works best in association with other parts of the hospital, such as the in-patient beds for various types of cases.
The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board was then in a position to provide the detailed outline of functions embodying all the planning proposals, and this was formally submitted in November, 1962, incorporating the firm decision that the first state should consist of out-patient, accident and emergency departments with a full range of supporting services. For the reason I have mentioned a ward block of 87 accident and orthopaedic beds, including a five-

bed intensive care unit, was included in the first stage of the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman referred to approval being given to the board's outline of functions in June, but, in fact, it was in May, 1963. The board had prepared the schedules of accommodation detailing the number and size of the rooms to be provided, together with the estimated provisional cost of the buildings. With this material, the board was able to set itself a target date for its budgetary planning purposes. It hoped to begin spending money in the financial year 1965–66, the cost of the scheme being envisaged as about £1,300,000.
From then onwards, the board continued with its twofold task of taking forward the detailed planning of the scheme and of fitting it into its financial programme. I should like to make it absolutely clear—especially in view of the title of the Adjournment debate, which refers to the cancellation of the hospital—

Mr. Jennings: It should be postponement, not cancellation.

Mr. Loughlin: —that there has never been any question of cancelling the scheme. There has been no question of abandoning either the major proposal to provide a district general hospital at Andressey, or the immediate intention of proceeding as fast as possible with the first stage. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with me that instead of cancellation it should be postponement.
The Andressey site is a good one, but it is on a slope with a fall of 30 feet and very detailed site investigations had to be made and there have been particular drainage problems to be looked at very closely. I should like also to emphasise that we are talking about a very substantial hospital development scheme costing on the latest estimate—to take my account a little further forward—more than £1,400,000, or nearly £1·7 million including fees and equipment.
In addition and over and above the costs I have mentioned, there will be substantial and necessary new staff accommodation provided. The costs of this are not yet determined, but they may be about £100,000 and the board intends


that they shall be ready by the time the main scheme which I have described is completed.
I mentioned earlier that the board had recently now reached a close estimate of the cost of this first main stage of the development. In more detail, it has now completed its preparation of the sketch plans for this stage and on 19th March, this year, we were able to give formal approval to them and to the related final cost limit of £1,426,390. This is a very important planning hurdle which has been cleared, for now the board can proceed to prepare working drawings and bills of quantities. My latest information is that these may be expected to be ready by the end of October, this year, and thereafter, before work could begin, there would remain only the invitation of tenders and the letting of a contract.
But, of course, every scheme within a board's programme has to be contained within its financial allocation for capital works, and although the scheme might be ready to start in the early months of next year if the remaining stages go very smoothly, tenders cannot be invited, of course, unless the board can provide the funds to pay the bills from start to finish of the scheme. The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board has been active in bringing a large number of much needed schemes to planning completion, and in this current financial year it will be aiming to spend over £8½ million.

Mr. Jennings: Not in Burton.

Mr. Loughlin: No. This is by far the greatest sum ever reached by the board. But the board has a responsibility in its area for determining priorities. It has to examine the whole of the region for which it is responsible.

Mr. Jennings: Why did it drop this scheme?

Mr. Loughlin: This is something which the board has to determine, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that where there is a constant reviewing of the position, on occasions there are revisions to, and alterations in, the time schedule of the proposals. The sum committed for the current financial year include a considerable number of very large schemes which will have reached a

start in 1965–66, and which will continue at least from 1966–67 with as much, or even more, being spent on them in that year as is provided in 1965–66.
Even if it had just been possible from a planning standpoint to make a start on phase 1 of the new district general hospital at Andressey, involving a relatively small expenditure in the last month or so of the financial year, there would have remained a financial commitment for 1966–67, in particular, which the board found that it could not possibly contain. Its intention is, therefore, as the hon. Gentleman was informed on 8th February, to start this major out-patient and accident and emergency department scheme, the content of which I have described, as early as possible in 1967–68, and for it to run straight through to completion.

Mr. Jennings: That is phases I, II and III?

Mr. Loughlin: I said to run through to completion. I want to be careful about this, because I am not too sure whether that means the whole of phases I, II and III.

Mr. Jennings: When the hon. Gentleman talks about running straight through to completion, does he mean the completion of phase I, or the completion of the whole scheme, that is, phases I, II and III?

Mr. Loughlin: That is what I began to hesitate about, because I did not want to say something which was likely to be wrong. I said phase I only, and I find that phase I only is correct.
All this is fairly and squarely within the context of my right hon. Friend the Minister's statement to the House on 8th February about the review of the hospital building programme. The House will remember that the Minister reminded us that because individual hospital schemes which comprised the plan had been imprecisely defined and costed, the resources originally thought necessary were found to be far from sufficient for all the schemes to be undertaken. He made it clear that he was now reviewing the future building programme with boards with three objectives in view.
First, a still closer look at the content and estimated cost of each project so


that the total programme could be more realistically matched with the resources likely to be available. Secondly, an examination of priorities, particularly to ensure that the needs of geriatric and psychiatric patients were properly weighed. Thirdly, so that special attention could be given to the co-ordinated planning of hospital, local health and welfare and general medical services. The boards and the Department will be undertaking this important and detailed reassessment during the coming months.
The Minister also made it clear that the Government had added £5 million to the 1965–66 capital programme so that schemes which were ready and scheduled to start in that year could go ahead. The planning of the Andressey scheme had not reached the stage of finality when a firm starting date could be fixed, and more especially, as I have explained, the regional hospital board, on its most up-to-date assessment of planning timetables, would not have been able to contain the consequential expenditure in 1966–67 even if starts could have been achieved at the end of 1965–66.
The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, naturally, explained this position in confidence to the Burton-on-Trent Hospital Management Committee before reaching any final decision at Board level. I recognise that the postponement of this scheme has caused disappointment to the management committee and to the Burton-on-Trent Borough Council and other authorities who have been in touch with the board and the Department. But similar disappointment has been the result of the many previous deferments and deletions which have occurred since the hospital plan was first published, and this one is the result of that over-commitment of the plan in the past which the

Minister described in his statement of 8th February.
I am confident that the House will be reassured that there is no question of the cancellation of the new district general hospital at Burton-on-Trent. In fact, the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board is pressing firmly ahead to the completion of phase I of this hospital. Both the board and the Minister accept the importance of this scheme and the planning stages have now been completed so that it can quite firmly be said that the scheme will start just as soon as the board can contain it within their budget. I repeat that on present assessments this is seen as being in the year 1967–68.
Lastly, I want to deal with the final question which the hon. Gentleman asked me, that is, whether some definite starting date can be given on this project. It is very easy for Ministers, and even junior Ministers, to be able to come to Members of Parliament who raise, quite properly, problems which they have in their constituency and say, "I have managed to solve your problem for you." I can only regret that I have not been able to come along on this occasion and say to the hon. Member that in view of the representations he has made, quite rightly and very well on behalf of his constituents, I will be able to do the job.
But I think that he can take this assurance, that without there being some unforeseen developments—and I mean that in the broad sense of the term—the present intentions of the board and the Ministry will be carried out and the first phase will start at the date we suggest, namely, early in 1967–68.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.